3 that representatives would be awarded to states “according to their respective numbers,” and that those numbers would be determined by a new count (an “actual enumeration”) every 10 years.Conducting the census is not simply a power granted to Congress; it is a positive duty as well.In the half century since the act became law, DOJ had always relied on other survey research for citizenship information, and had never asked for a change in the questionnaire before.
Courts are called in as referees when someone alleges that an agency’s enforcement actions don’t match the authority Congress has given it—that, in essence, the president or those who work for him or her have changed federal statutes rather than enforced them.
Read: The citizenship question isn’t quite dead yet If that question sounds simple, the answer is, “Have you ever met a statute?
(Old Sarum, Wiltshire, for example, comprised three houses and seven voters, but had its own member of Parliament.)Read: The 2020 census is already in big trouble The framers wanted the U. House of Representatives to be the “people’s house,” and to do that, distribution of seats had to be fair.
For this reason, they provided in Article I § 2 cl.
Maybe, but the administration hasn’t made a serious effort to cite them. As we have seen, the claim that the Justice Department wanted the question was a lie.
Beyond that, when the Commerce Department sent its draft questionnaire to Congress, it stated that the citizenship question had been on the questionnaire from “1890 to present”—not only a lie but a clumsy one.Administrators can’t just wake up one morning and say, “Hey, let’s do this! Whatever you think of the idea as a general matter, it presents complex issues in the 2020 census context. census is one of the few in the world that is required by its country’s constitution.” They must follow set procedures when they make their own internal rules, when they make regulations that govern the public, and when they penalize people or companies for violations of federal statutes and rules.: The census form hasn’t asked whether each person listed is a U. The first is whether the department followed proper procedures in changing the question; the second is whether a citizenship question will make the 2020 census count more accurate and useful. The Framers in 1787 were well aware that in England, seats in the House of Commons were handed out in arbitrary fashion: Some huge towns had only one member—or were lumped in with rural areas—while other “rotten boroughs” had a full seat despite having as few as half a dozen voters.That’s because noncitizens filling out the form might become worried that the government will retain the information and use it for immigration enforcement, and thus will throw away the form rather than returning it.Both of these defects violate the Census Act’s instructions, Furman said; he enjoined the Commerce Department from adding the question to next year’s questionnaire.When the bureau asked for public comment on the new question, moreover, almost no one came forward to support it.Thus, Furman concluded, the department used improper procedures to reach the decision—and the decision itself, far from being “necessary,” will make the census less valuable and accurate.As amended over the years, it specifies both the aims of the census and the procedures to be used in creating and compiling it.The act in particular restricts what information can be gathered, how it can be gathered, and how it can be used.The census questionnaire is just one of the ways the bureau gathers information; the others involve consulting records of other state and federal agencies and summarizing or extrapolating figures from them. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York, that wasn’t legal.Because the questionnaire is so intrusive, the act provides that the bureau should prefer gathering data from these other sources, and should gather only “necessary” information from the questionnaire. Anderson, in noted that leaders from George Washington on have agreed that “any changes in census questions or calls for additional data would be evaluated in terms of the potential loss in accuracy and timeliness of the basic apportionment data.”This takes us to March 2018, when Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross directed the bureau to add a citizenship question to the census questionnaire. After a three-week-long trial, Furman in January concluded, first, that the question was rushed onto the questionnaire in a hasty power play by Trump appointees, who did not properly notify Congress of their intention and then provided the court with a misleading explanation of the procedures used to develop the question; and, second, that statistical authorities, most particularly the Census Bureau’s experts, agree that the question will make the census reliable.