Supreme Court reviews Trump plan to exclude undocumented immigrants in redistricting

[groundloop]

Source: ABC News

In what could be one of his most politically significant final acts as president, Donald Trump plans to exclude millions of undocumented immigrants from the official 2020 Census figures used to allocate political power and billions of dollars in federal funds.

(snip)


The justices on Monday will hear oral arguments over Trump's effort -- already twice rejected by lower federal courts -- that would break from more than a century of precedent in determining apportionment of the 435 congressional districts across all 50 states.

If successful, it would boost the influence of predominantly conservative, Republican states and rural communities while drawing resources away from more liberal, Democratic states and urban areas.

The Constitution requires an "actual enumeration" be performed every 10 years to account for changes in population and that decennial redistricting be based on "the whole number of persons in each state," regardless of citizenship or immigration status.

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-reviews-trump-plan-exclude-undocumented-immigrants/story?id=74363328&cid=clicksource_4380645_4_three_posts_card_hed

---

Once again, GOPers depend on gaming the system to retain power.

[Xipe Totec]

1. This would hurt Texas, Arizona, and Florida. Not exactly bastions of liberal Democrats.

But go ahead; this will only hasten turning those states blue.

[disndat]

2. Thanks for this

great heads up!

[JohnnyRingo]

8. I guess that's true.

Just another scheme not too well thought out by this sham of an administration. It's probably that racist Stephen Miller's pet project.

[LeftInTX]

16. It will give more seats to red areas.

Kinda like the the 3/5 vote thing.
Urban districts will become more suburban.
New districts will be carved from suburban areas.

[riversedge]

3. gawd. Our only hope for those involved is that the SC agrees with the lower

courts................


.............In legal briefs, the parties cite an "unbroken historical and legislative practice" spanning more than 200 years of the Census Bureau counting "millions of undocumented immigrants who have lived here for decades, intend to remain and will in fact stay ... (as) usual residents under traditional criteria."

In September, a three-judge panel in New York sided with the states against Trump, calling the issue "not particularly close or complicated." Last month, a separate panel of judges in California also dealt a blow to the administration, saying "It seeks to do what Congress has not authorized and what the President does not have the power to do."

[not fooled]

4. Okay, this is the chance for all of those 'Originalists' on the court,

to show just how much they revere the Constitution, by following it to the letter and throwing out red don's puke power grab.

If thomas, acb et al. side with the pukes, they will be clearly exposed for the expedient hypocrites we already know they are.

[maxrandb]

6. Hell, if they could get away with it, this "court"

would go back to only white, male property owners having the right to representation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't undocumented folks still subject to our laws and representation?

How would this even work? Would they just "guess" on the number of undocumented immigrants?

[pazzyanne]

9. You are right, it will separate the chaff from the grain.

From the Constitution of the United States:

"The U.S. Constitution empowers the Congress to carry out the census in "such manner as they shall by Law direct" (Article I, Section 2). The Founders of our fledgling nation had a bold and ambitious plan to empower the people over their new government. The plan was to count every person living in the newly created United States of America, and to use that count to determine representation in the Congress."

Wording like that is hard to get around in my opinion.

[mr_lebowski]

10. That's not from the Constitution, it's someone's interpretation of the Constitution ...

Hence wording like 'the plan was'.

Not saying it's not correct interpretation

[pazzyanne]

20. It is from the Census web site.

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/census-constitution.html

[Historic NY]

5. Let's see how these so-called strict constitutionalist act on this.

[JohnnyRingo]

7. Seems obvious, doesn't it?

It's right there in the 18th century document to consider every person.
If those "strict constitutionalists" on the bench vote against that, they only use their ideals when it's benefits republicans.

[mr_lebowski]

11. Was it SCOTUS who struck down the Citizenship question on the Census?

Seems to me they said No on that, though I'm not sure the exact justification behind it.

So why would they say 'Yes' on this question?

This was the obvious endgame of putting the question in the census in the first place.

Of course I guess if they turn around and approve THIS, then suddenly there's a reason for the question to be on the Census, and that previous decision will then be reconsidered.

[wolfie001]

12. More Reich Wing hackery!

From the nasty, hateful slob in the WH.

[ssgbryan]

13. Congress can always throw out the Census and do it again.

After the pandemic subsides.

And while they are at it, they need to toss the Reapportionment Act of 1929.

1 rep per 1/2 million (rough population of Wyoming).

[DeminPennswoods]

14. It won't hurt just TX and FL, but big agribusiness

midwestern states like Iowa.

[LeftInTX]

17. Resources will be moved from urban to suburban areas in Texas

Blue urban areas will struggle.
More districts will be created in nonurban areas

[ancianita]

15. Once again the Constitution will be quoted about the Census and "persons."

[LiberalFighter]

18. Could exclude minors,

those without a high school education (GED not qualified), prisoners serving time in state and federal prisons, ministers and their families, families with foster kids, cat ladies, contractors and their employees that do business with the federal government.

[Firestorm49]

19. If the stacked SC goes along with him, we will have no choice but to add justices.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

21. That's assuming Dems "own" the Senate, and that Manchin will go along.

Wouldn't it take 60 senators to increase the number of SCOTUS seats?

[DeminPennswoods]

22. Manchin can be co-opted by Biden putting him

on the commission he creates to study reforming the federal courts.