America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 4 years ago by frankj1. 12 replies replies.
Don't put off using the BleachBit, folks
dstieger Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Doncha just hate it when plausible deniability gets crushed by poorly buried facts?
I still think the question is legal, but any chance at rational discussion about it is probably shot to hell now

Despite Trump administration denials, new evidence suggests census citizenship question was crafted to benefit white Republicans

By Tara Bahrampour, Washington Post
May 30 at 1:23 PM

Just weeks before the Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether the Trump administration can add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, new evidence emerged Thursday suggesting the question was crafted specifically to give an electoral advantage to white Republicans.

The evidence was found in the files of the prominent Republican redistricting strategist Thomas Hofeller after his death in August. It reveals that Hofeller “played a significant role in orchestrating the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census in order to create a structural electoral advantage for, in his own words, ‘Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,’ ” and that Trump administration officials purposely obscured Hofeller’s role in court proceedings, lawyers for plaintiffs challenging the question wrote in a letter to U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman. Furman was one of three federal judges who ruled against the question this year.

The letter drew on new information discovered on hard drives belonging to Hofeller, which were found accidentally by Hofeller’s estranged daughter. Stephanie Hofeller Lizon then shared them with the organization Common Cause for a gerrymandering lawsuit it is pursuing in North Carolina.

The files show that Hofeller concluded in a 2015 study that adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census “would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats” and “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” in redistricting, and then pushed the idea with the Trump administration in 2017, according to the letter to Furman.

The evidence, which was first reported by The New York Times, contradicts sworn testimony by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s expert adviser A. Mark Neuman and senior Justice Department official John Gore, as well as other testimony by defendants, the letter said.

The Commerce and Justice departments did not respond to questions about the new information.

It is unclear whether there is a way for lawyers challenging the citizenship question to get the new information to the Supreme Court, which will decide the case by the term’s end next month. Evidence in the case concluded with oral arguments April 23, when the conservative majority seemed inclined to side with the government.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion in district court Thursday morning for “sanctions and any other relief the court deems appropriate, because of apparently untruthful testimony” by Trump administration officials in the earlier trials, said Dale Ho, who argued the case at the Supreme Court on behalf of the ACLU.

“We started at the district court because that where the misrepresentations were made,” he said. “We’re evaluating what other options would be appropriate.”

The ACLU also asked the court to allow previously redacted testimony from Neuman to be made public. On Thursday, Furman ordered that the government must provide a response by 10 a.m. Friday and called a hearing on the matter for Wednesday.

The new information indicates that blueprints for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census predated the Trump administration, but Donald Trump’s election allowed them to become a reality, Ho said.

“It just shows that there was a long-standing plan to weaponize the census to dilute minority voting power to try to forestall the electoral effects of the demographic changes that this country is undergoing,” he said.

Ho said sanctions could include fines imposed on witnesses or the government, a reopening of the case or an amendment of the final judgment to account for new evidence.

The population count from the decennial census is used to allocate $800 billion a year in federal funding and determine congressional representation and redistricting. Opponents of the citizenship question have argued that it will suppress response to the survey among immigrant communities, resulting in an undercount in the areas where they live.

Hofeller’s files also reveal that in August 2017, he helped ghostwrite a draft Department of Justice letter to the Commerce Department requesting a citizenship question and coming up with a rationale — to help enforce the Voting Rights Act, the plaintiffs’ lawyers said. He then gave this letter to Gore, the principal deputy assistant attorney general, in October 2017, they said.

The gen­esis of that request and the rationale behind it were key questions in trials challenging the question. Ross initially had told Congress that the request was initiated by the Justice Department in a December 2017 letter, but administration documents released in the case later indicated that it came at Ross’s urging, starting months earlier. Census and voting rights experts have said the question is not needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

The Justice Department letter “bears striking similarities to Dr. Hofeller’s 2015 study, stating that a citizenship question on the Census was essential to advantaging Republicans and white voters,” the letter to Furman said. It added: “Based on this new evidence, it appears that both Neuman and Gore falsely testified about the genesis of DOJ’s request to Commerce in ways that obscured the pretextual character of the request.”

Critics of the question blasted the administration after the news broke.

“Republican political operatives plainly want to deny communities of color the health care, education and other services they need in order to consolidate GOP power and a whiter electorate,” said Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “We call on Congress to hold Trump administration officials — including Secretary Ross — accountable now and not to wait until after the Supreme Court ruling to do so.”
DrafterX Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Illegals means illegals right..?? Think
delta1 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,782
another look behind the curtain... part of the plan to take us back to when America was Great...
Abrignac Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,270
Checks and Balances

Democrats want to allow anyone to enter and stay in the country illegally.

Republicans want to make sure the number of illegals are counted.

Win/win?
izonfire Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,647
DrafterX wrote:
Illegals means illegals right..?? Think


Of course.
Unless you have no respect for the law...
izonfire Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,647
delta1 wrote:
another look behind the curtain... part of the plan to take us back to when America was Great...


Yeah, back when their were no fucquin white people.
Hate dem crackas
Speyside Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Love it how certain morons here don't read, they just pontificate. Try reading the above article. Some salient points. Hoffeller concluded the citizenship question would hurt Democrats and benefit Republicans, and non Hispanic whites. No mention is made of illegal aliens. Newman and Gore appear to have falsely testified about the genus is of the DOJ's request. Again, no mention of illegal aliens. If you want to pontificate try to have facts that back it up. Mmmmmk?
frankj1 Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
Abrignac wrote:
Checks and Balances

Democrats want to allow anyone to enter and stay in the country illegally.

Republicans want to make sure the number of illegals are counted.

Win/win?

might be wrong, but my understanding of the census is not that it exists to count citizens, it exists to count how many people live in each state/the USA. Live here, period.

so the Hoefellfarter dude figured that tons of legal and illegal minorities wouldn't send theirs in, likely benefitting the GOP when total heads are counted...

for example: Massachusetts has approximately 1 million people living here from other countries both legally and not. All should be counted by census...but if x amount don't reply, then MA's numbers go down and that affects lots of things like Federal money and stuff.

also, to be a democrat does not mean one has to be in favor of illegal entry. That is an emotional election hot button and you should recognize that.

I am not a democrat, as you may know.

also, the census is not responsible for counting illegals. It is responsible for counting how many people live here and really has no political agenda. There are methods with which I am not familiar.
Abrignac Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,270
Think of it as a win/win. Being able to finally get a accurate immigration we can eliminate the need to hire people to estimate those numbers.
Gene363 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,810
Speyside wrote:
Love it how certain morons here don't read, they just pontificate. Try reading the above article. Some salient points. Hoffeller concluded the citizenship question would hurt Democrats and benefit Republicans, and non Hispanic whites. No mention is made of illegal aliens. Newman and Gore appear to have falsely testified about the genus is of the DOJ's request. Again, no mention of illegal aliens. If you want to pontificate try to have facts that back it up. Mmmmmk?


"Evidence" allegedly found after they guy is dead, by an estranged family member and given to the ACLU. Yawn... Not talking
frankj1 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
Abrignac wrote:
Think of it as a win/win. Being able to finally get a accurate immigration we can eliminate the need to hire people to estimate those numbers.

they work for minimum wage, GOP minimum wage!
no savings for us.
frankj1 Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
Gene363 wrote:
"Evidence" allegedly found after they guy is dead, by an estranged family member and given to the ACLU. Yawn... Not talking

yet it does ring true somehow.
Users browsing this topic
Guest