The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Trump administration's plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census Thursday, giving opponents new hope of defeating it.
The ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the rationale for the administration's effort, just as challenging states and immigrant rights groups have done.
In a complex decision with several dissents and concurrences, the court's four liberal justices said they would have struck down the citizenship question outright, while the court's four other conservative justices said it should have been upheld.
The court's decision doesn't end the dispute. A separate challenge to the administration's motive for asking the citizenship question remains alive in another federal district court. That inquiry could drag on for much of the summer, jeopardizing the timetable for printing the census questionnaire.
Opponents contended that adding the question was an effort to scare non-citizens into avoiding the census. That in turn would require expanding largely Democratic congressional districts, potentially reducing their overall number. It could cost California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Arizona seats in Congress.
Though it had appeared during oral argument that all the court's conservative justices were on the administration's side, Roberts proved the deciding vote.
The lower court judges – all named by President Barack Obama – described acts of subterfuge and misleading statements intended to obscure the real reasons for asking the citizenship question.
1. What are arguments made for the side that favors implementation of the citizenship question on the new census?
2. What are arguments made for the side that does not favor implementation of the citizenship question on the new census?
3. What past Supreme Court rulings provided the current justices with a precedent for which to help make their decision? Did they make the right decision?
Arguments made for the side that favors implementation include the need for “accurate citizenship data.” This side also claims that there will be a limited burden if the question is instituted. On the other hand, however, people who do not favor the implementation of the question say that it will deter non-citizens from replying to the census, which will impact the results of the census from states with high populations of immigrants. These states tend to be Democratic, so if there were fewer census results from these states, the Democrats may lose seats in the House. I personally think that the judges made the right decision to not implement this census question, as the purpose of the census is to receive unbiased and accurate information about the people living in the United States. Also, it is possible for people who have legally immigrated to not be citizens, so the question may harm those individuals.
ReplyDelete1. The citizenship question on the 2020 census would allow the government to gain a more accurate view as to who lives in the country. It would be inflict harm to answer either way, but only provide accurate information to the government.
ReplyDelete2. The citizenship question could also be used to drive people away from contributing to the census. Some people may not be comfortable answering this question at all, and would therefore avoid taking the survey at all. This would decrease the accuracy of the information gathered.
I agree with Benjamin. I believe that many people would not be comfortable or feel good about taking said survey. Without a large enough sample space, and without it being completely random, it would knock the credibility and accuracy of the survey
Delete1. With an implementation of the citizenship question, it would push the government to find a representation of who is in fact citizens. However, this question will pose the threat of non-citizens hiding out during the census or possibly trying to lie. It will create fear within the respondents, and not give the government anything extremely happen.
ReplyDelete3. In a way, Shaw v. Reno sets the precedent for this case. The idea of "one person, one vote" and trying to have each district be as equal as possible helps the case of those who oppose the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 survey. If non-citizens don't fill out the census, many Democratic districts will be expanded and the number of them will decrease.
ReplyDelete2. Those who do not favor the citizenship question argue that such a question will discourage these individuals from participating in the census. Since this demographic typically votes Democratic, it seems like Republicans are trying to reduce Democratic influence by shrinking their congressional districts. This seems like a fair assumption, due to things like Voter ID Laws that made it difficult for minorities and Native Americans to Vote. While the effect of this may not be to the same extent, the similarities are still present.
ReplyDelete1. What are arguments made for the side that favors implementation of the citizenship question on the new census?
ReplyDeleteTheir argument is that they need the “real answers” from the American people and not immigrants that can skewed the people voice.
2. What are arguments made for the side that does not favor implementation of the citizenship question on the new census?
That it would make people afraid to answer, not only Democrats, but also Republicans that don’t like the government to ask personal questions. In fact many people skip the question that said that the go
2. Arguments made for the side that does not favor implementation of the citizenship question are that it will discourage illegal/undocumented residents from answering the census, which will inevitably skew the data. The goal of the census is to collect as much accurate and representative data of the population as possible, and while documentation status is definitely a variable that would be interesting to observe, the data would not be representative if undocumented immigrants who also affect the results of the census refuse to participate. In order to achieve the goal of the census, it is important to ensure that as many people as possible answer, which means that a question about immigration status is unwarranted.
ReplyDeleteSome arguments to favor the implementation of a non citizenship question is that it gives the government a more accurate census when you consider the entire population of the U.S. By not excluding the non citizen group it can limit the chance of gerrymandering occurring in the upcoming 2020 census to not give the Republican Party an advantage when redrawing the lines.
ReplyDelete1. What are arguments made for the side that favors implementation of the citizenship question on the new census?
ReplyDeleteA few arguments for the side that favors the implementation of the citizenship question in the new census is that it would only get those that have papers, and legal citizenship to stay in the Country, massively decreasing the sample size for the census. Rather than getting answers from all the people, it will only get answers from the "American people". By decreasing the sample size, this decision will greatly skew the census and the answers they receive, making it an unreliable piece of data.
The main argument for the side that favors implementation of the citizenship question is filtering out non-citizens for representation. When drawing district lines and looking at representatives, states that illegal immigrants tend to stay in will be underrepresented. Some people believe this is positive because the non-citizens living in America will not be included in decisions like voting for president.
ReplyDeleteA citizenship question on the consensus could help the United States determine how many and what percentage of the United States is non citizens are living in the country. It could show where illegal immigrants (for the non-citizens who are such) are residing, which would help determine where to implement border patrol. It would also help determine numbers for how many people would vote in elections, as non-citizens cannot be counted because they can not vote.
ReplyDelete