Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A democracy designed for a diverse country faces its latest test

Opinion

Supreme Court census protest

The Supreme Court will hear a census case Monday.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Smith is the vice president for litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit focused on bolstering voting rights and curbing money's influence on politics.


President Trump's crusade to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census count is being put through one final test.

At a key inflection point that may offer a window into how the Supreme Court will evaluate politically charged cases after the arrival of its newest member, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court will hear the census case on Monday. It's extremely late in the game, as federal law requires the latest population counts for the allocation of congressional seats to be finalized by the end of December.

Chief Justice John Roberts knows how our continued faith in the Supreme Court depends on a collective belief that the court remains above the fray, not just another forum for partisan dispute. This case will be a test of that faith, because the president's order excluding undocumented immigrants from the census was both glaringly illegal and undertaken solely for political benefit.

The chief justice already ruled against the president once in a census case, last year, when Trump tried to add a citizenship question to the census. This time around, the question is similar: Can the president unilaterally exclude undocumented immigrants from state population counts that will be used to apportion seats in the House of Representatives?

Starting with the first census in 1790, the counts used for this apportionment function have always included all residents of the United States — citizens and non-citizens, regardless of immigration status. That is what the plain language of the Constitution calls for. There is no reason to change course now.

In addition to congressional apportionment, the case could have a direct impact on the outcome of future presidential elections. Since a state's number of Electoral College votes are determined in part by its seats in the House, excluding undocumented immigrants could reduce the voting power of Latinx communities — and other communities of color — in selecting presidents.

The president, however, has politicized the census in an unprecedented attempt to further marginalize communities that have struggled for political representation in the past.

On July 21, Trump announced that, "for the purpose of the reapportionment" after the census," the administration will "exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status." To implement this policy, the president directed Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, whose department includes the Census Bureau, to produce a second set of population data, separate from the results of the 2020 census, that would exclude undocumented immigrants.

The move is not only illegal but also extremely harmful. By law, the census must draw from the total population to ensure that the federal government is responsive and accountable to all people. This is to ensure it reflects population shifts in our diversifying country. The 14th Amendment requires that "representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State."

In the decision that is on appeal in this case, a federal district court in New York noted that federal law prohibits the president from relying on a second set of data, separate from the census, to reapportion Congress. A federal district court in California agreed, ruling Trump's attempt to exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment base violated the 14th Amendment.

Trump's plan not only ignores the Constitution, it also threatens to undercut central principles of our democracy. Elected officials do not simply represent the interests of those who voted for them. They represent all people in their districts. This includes children, noncitizens and individuals denied the right to vote due to state law. If left unchecked, the outgoing president's plan will unlawfully alter the composition of government and bend it towards his will.

This is a major test for the Supreme Court. It will be scrutinized to see whether it will stop the president's move to freeze out Americans by telling them they don't count.


Read More

The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tourists gather at Mather Point on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, enjoying panoramic views of the iconic natural wonder

National Park Service budget cuts are reshaping America’s public lands through underfunding and neglect. Explore how declining park staffing, deferred maintenance, and political inaction threaten national parks, local economies, and public trust in government.

Getty Images, miroslav_1

They Won’t Close the Parks. They’ll Just Let Them Fail.

This summer, before dawn, the Liu family from Buffalo will load up their SUV, coffee in hand, bound for a long-planned trip out west. The Grand Canyon has been on their list for years, something to do before the kids get too old and schedules get too tight. They expect crowds. They expect long lines at the entrance. That is part of the deal. In recent years, national parks have drawn more than 325 million visits annually, near record highs.

What they do not expect are shuttered visitor centers and closed trails, not because of weather but because there are not enough staff to maintain them. What they do not see is the budget decision in Washington that made those trade-offs, quietly, indirectly, and without much debate.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less