USA 2020 Census Results Thread (Release: Today, 26 April)
Vosem:
Quote from: Skill and Chance on February 19, 2024, 03:54:53 PM
Quote from: Vosem on February 19, 2024, 03:47:56 PM
Has presidential implications, too: the plaintiffs being granted relief (in the form of extra seats given to FL and TX, even if those seats aren't taken away from anywhere else) would almost certainly mean 2020+GA/AZ/NV turns into a Trump victory map, and takes away the requirement that a Midwestern state flips.
Isn't it already within Purcell range of 2024 though, especially if it involves a SCOTUS appeal on the merits?
Did a case ever reach SCOTUS asking them to force reapportionment in the 1920's? I know the 1910 census apportionment was used for 2 decades for political reasons. Of course, that predates all modern civil rights law.
I mean, if it involves a SCOTUS appeal on the merits, then the case might very easily only be heard by SCOTUS next year; by no means do I think it would be too early now, but I think I agree with you that even if the plaintiffs triumph it'll probably be too late to alter the outcome of 2024 (and I don't think the plaintiffs have a very good chance of winning, actually; I just think it's a fascinating and novel question, and I think the case is not ridiculous).
To my knowledge there was not such a case in the 1920s, though if there was some very interesting things could be learned. I feel like the whole practice of the Census Bureau putting out press releases apart from the Census itself where it opines on the meanings of the data it has collected and the problems with collecting it, is most likely peculiar to the Internet Age (and the problems with the 2020 Census are a one-time consequence of the COVID epidemic)?
Skill and Chance:
Quote from: Vosem on February 19, 2024, 04:56:03 PM
Quote from: Skill and Chance on February 19, 2024, 03:54:53 PM
Quote from: Vosem on February 19, 2024, 03:47:56 PM
Has presidential implications, too: the plaintiffs being granted relief (in the form of extra seats given to FL and TX, even if those seats aren't taken away from anywhere else) would almost certainly mean 2020+GA/AZ/NV turns into a Trump victory map, and takes away the requirement that a Midwestern state flips.
Isn't it already within Purcell range of 2024 though, especially if it involves a SCOTUS appeal on the merits?
Did a case ever reach SCOTUS asking them to force reapportionment in the 1920's? I know the 1910 census apportionment was used for 2 decades for political reasons. Of course, that predates all modern civil rights law.
I mean, if it involves a SCOTUS appeal on the merits, then the case might very easily only be heard by SCOTUS next year; by no means do I think it would be too early now, but I think I agree with you that even if the plaintiffs triumph it'll probably be too late to alter the outcome of 2024 (and I don't think the plaintiffs have a very good chance of winning, actually; I just think it's a fascinating and novel question, and I think the case is not ridiculous).
To my knowledge there was not such a case in the 1920s, though if there was some very interesting things could be learned. I feel like the whole practice of the Census Bureau putting out press releases apart from the Census itself where it opines on the meanings of the data it has collected and the problems with collecting it, is most likely peculiar to the Internet Age (and the problems with the 2020 Census are a one-time consequence of the COVID epidemic)?
I also don't think it's nuts in a world where malapportionment violates equal protection.
However, they would obviously need a lot of votes from conservative justices, and it seems that originalism/textualism would heavily favor deferring to congress on how to conduct the census? I think there's an obvious middle ground here where congress is free to pass a law ordering an interim census to correct apparent errors in representation, but SCOTUS can't order them to conduct one in the absence of such a law?
Tintrlvr:
Quote from: Vosem on February 19, 2024, 03:40:56 PM
Quote from: Tintrlvr on February 19, 2024, 02:51:05 PM
Quote from: Atlas Force on February 19, 2024, 02:03:40 PM
https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1759638217345687925var scriptTag = document.getElementsByTagName('script');scriptTag = scriptTag[scriptTag.length-1];atlas_tweetCheckLoad(scriptTag.parentNode, "tw_0_17372731082046414824", "tw_2_4903613271655086727", "https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1759638217345687925");
This is a weird one because the merits seem not that strong, but the plaintiffs should have standing, and the appeal right now is all about standing. Of course the Supreme Court at least and therefore probably also the DC Circuit loves dismissing suits where they doubt the merits by using standing as a cudgel.
This is an authentically fascinating one, because the Census Bureau has never before admitted to mistakes of a similar magnitude; it actually seems beyond dispute that MN and RI got an extra seat, and TX and FL were stiffed one, and several other changes are plausible.
On the one hand, my understanding is that the Census Bureau's assessment is final and can't be changed, but I think that's statutory, such that if the Supreme Court feels like it, it could probably just unilaterally give those seats away using due process or something. Fascinating case (though my guess is that SCOTUS doesn't want to rock this boat and won't introduce any really novel remedies, but I don't see why residents of Texas and Florida deprived of their constitutionally-guaranteed representation wouldn't have standing).
Fundamentally, it's important to understand what the Census Bureau is saying. The Bureau has not said that there were mistakes in the 2020 Census. Instead, what it has asserted is that the methodology it uses for estimating population on an intercalated basis and the methodology it used for implementing the 2020 Census produced different results. There is no reason to believe that the intercalated estimates are more accurate than the Census itself, and in fact generally speaking the estimates have historically performed worse than the Census when examined by private studies. (A classic example is the wild overestimate of Detroit's population in the 2009 estimates vs. the 2010 Census because the estimates were exceptionally bad at tracking home abandonment.) 2020 was an extreme example because it did take place during the Covid pandemic, and it's possible that the circumstances of 2020 made the Census itself worse than the estimates, but we really do not know that at all.
Anyway, the merits of the case are about something completely different. The plaintiffs in this case claim that various voter ID laws sufficiently abridge the right to vote such that the Penalty Clause of the 14th Amendment kicks in and should reduce the population used for those states' allocation of seats by those disenfranchised by the laws. The Supreme Court at least is extremely unlikely to agree that voter ID laws rise to the level of triggering the Penalty Clause. But either way, the plaintiffs are not disputing the Census results, only how they are implemented in apportionment. So I'm not sure why we're even talking about this.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page