If you follow this sort of thing, then you are aware Chief Justice Roberts surprised many right-thinking Americans with two deciding votes. He voted with the Court’s liberals in sending the “census question” back to the lower courts and with the Court’s conservatives in upholding a state legislature’s right to gerrymander. In the spirit of full disclosure, I predicted quite the opposite outcome.
I thought the Court would rule 5-4 that partisan gerrymandering was un-constitutional – simply because the Court had ruled against racial gerrymandering. Gerrymandered voting districts are a patently partisan situation that stretch the bounds of common sense. How is it fair that one political party gains a voting majority and then games the system to ensure political control?
In 1812, when Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts approved district lines that resembled salamanders on voting maps, being accused of gerrymandering was no complement. Partisan voting maps did allow a minority of voters to determine a state’s political power. Silly me – I forgot the Supreme Court’s obligation to enforce our nation’s constitutional constructs.
I commend Roberts for his judicial restraint: he did not legislate from the bench and invent a brand new constitutional construct. He joined Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas, rightly acknowledging that the constitution left it up state legislators to determine their state’s voting districts.
Before going postal, please note the North Carolina challenge was to a Republican-drawn map, and the Maryland challenge was to a Democrat-drawn map. Really, do either liberals or conservatives want Washington to determine their state’s voting districts? At issue here is a benefit of democracy; fleeting majorities are determined by state electorates, who have the legal standing to change “unfair” voting maps. In short order, they can vote the “bums” out or take the matter to a state supreme court.
I felt certain the Supremes would uphold the Commerce Department’s decision to include a citizenship question in a 5-4 decision, mostly because the census is the purview of the executive branch. I still believe the question will be allowed because the Court’s decision is just a temporary block.
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts advised the Department of Commerce to present evidence to counter the Thomas Hofeller draft memo liberals had provided to the Court. Hofeller, a Republican political operative, had used hypothetical models to suggest voting-age only population surveys would benefit Republicans.
The Department of Justice argued in appeals court there’s insufficient evidence that Hofeller had shown his hypothesis to anyone inside the Trump administration. Still, the memo is on the public record and the chief justice wants it countered. The White House will delay the census and re-approach the Court.
It is my view that all partisan memos are insufficient evidence in DC, where thousands of ridiculous partisan memos are circulated daily. Many are not read and most do not convince. Plaintiff attorneys have suggested a random gonzo memo implies nefarious intent, but have not proven how actionable or material Hofeller’s memo was.
The stench of hypocrisy is vast regarding the citizenship question. Democrats are convinced an under-count of undocumented immigrants will cost them power and money, theorizing that illegal aliens believe “no” invites ICE agents to their door. In this scenario, non-citizen households will throw the form away, costing Democrats about 6 million supporters. That is one serious thinking trap.
Florida and Texas are just as susceptible to under-counting as California and Nevada, but want the question included at the risk of losing federal funds, as well as extra seats in the House and electoral votes. Democrats presume blue states have more to lose than red states. And there you have it. Blue states, such as California, want to continue gaming the census.
It is no secret that California Democrats taxed and spent excessively, using SALT deductions to shift the state’s federal tax burden onto low-tax states, such as Florida. Meanwhile, they openly promoted their sanctuary status to attract illegal immigrants, pumping up their census numbers. And, whenever red states complained about funding blue-state entitlement programs, Democrats accused the “chump” states of racism.
As a practical matter, if Democrats are serious about immigration policy, they should want more insight into immigrant fear and honesty. In my view, an illegal alien who answers “no” should advance on the path to citizenship – because courage and honesty should be rewarded.
At issue here is information. Do we want more or less? Washington cannot stumble blindly into the future because 2% of the population is afraid to tell the truth, especially if that 2% is here illegally. They are wrong, but at least Democrats are open about their intent: they want to hang onto power and money – and they need illegal aliens counted to do so.