Perspectives: Census case raises world, state issues.

Byline: Marshall H. Tanick

"The true test of civilization is not the Census

but the kind of [person] the country turns out."

Society and Solitude

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1870)

One significant but largely overlooked feature of the U.S. Supreme Court's hearing late last month challenging placement of a citizenship question on the upcoming 2020 census, U.S. Dept. of Commerce v. New York, was a pair of remarks of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanagh, extolling how other countries do make such inquiries. Both appointees of President Donald Trump cited approvingly at oral argument what nations do in their population enumeration procedures, even pointing out support of the recommendation from the United Nations, no less.

Seemingly poised to help form a majority in favor of including the citizenship question on the 2020 head count, Gorsuch observed that it was undisputed that no one was claiming that the question "was improper to ask in some way, shape or form" and went on to approvingly reference practices around the world and "virtually every English speaking country and a great many others besides, [which] ask this question" in their censuses. Kavanagh similarly weighed in by stating that a "number of other countries ask the citizenship question."

Their intimations from the bench, anchored by those two and three other conservative colleagues, are likely to lead to a ruling in favor of the Commerce Department to make the inquiry, an outcome that may have significant impact upon Minnesota with respect to representation in Congress, federal funding and other matters. But rather than being adverse, the ruling that court-watching seersanticipate in favor of the Trump administration may actually benefit Minnesota, compared to some other states.

The notion that remarks from the bench by the high court jurists are not indicative of how they will vote is more a myth of moot court exercises than a recognition of reality. In fact, the oral argument observations are usually, but not universally, quite predictive of the outcome. If so, the census seems likely to contain a citizenship question next year.

But the casewas thrown a late-breaking curve ball with the disclosure last week of a trove of documents among the files of a deceased Republican strategist who was reported to have been the architect of the citizenship question. The materials reflected that the question was intended to be propounded as a means of frightening off noncitizens of color to minimize their head count to the political detriment of Democrats and for the benefit of "Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites." Whether and howthis revelation effects the outcome of the pending case remains to be seen.

This case represents the second time in three years that the jurists in the nation's capital have addressed a census issue. While this time the court seems sharply divided between its conservative pro-question and liberal anti-inquiry wings, the last time it was unanimous. InEvenwell v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016)...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT