I just read an article published at NBC News written by Jessica Levinson, a law professor from Loyola Law School, about the disaster that could be brewing if the Supreme Court allows the 2020 census to ask people if they are US citizens. It's an amazingly poor piece of work.
Let's start with this key sentence: According to Levinson, "[the census] determines how much federal funding, how many members of congress, and how many electors to the Electoral College are allocated to each district in the nation."
Wrong. Districts all, by definition, get one member of congress. Districts to not get electors to the Electoral College except in Nebraska and Maine, but even in those states each district gets one no matter what the census shows. Even when it comes to federal funding, the census does not determine all of that. There are some programs where the census plays this roll, but many where it does not. For example, if the federal government locates a federal facility in a district, that district gets extra funding no matter what the census says. That means that this "law professor" was totally wrong on two basic facts and half wrong on a third. That's appalling for someone claiming to know the law.
Levinson also misstates other facts in her article. She claims that the citizenship question was dropped from the census in 1950. That's not true. The question was moved from the short form to the long form at that time. That means that 20% of all people were asked if they were citizens, a practice which has been continued into this century.
Levinson also indicates that asking immigrants if they are citizens will discourage legal immigrants from responding to the census. Of course, she gives no reason and offers no proof. She just says it, so it must be true.
Look, the idea that asking people if they are US citizens is a potential cause of "disaster" is about as silly a position as one can have on an important issue. It's the rough equivalent of saying that requiring presentation of a photo ID before entering a federal building will "discourage" those who are here illegally from dealing with the federal government on a whole range of issues. That may or may not be true. One thing is certain, however: there is a security reason for requiring ID to enter a federal building. That outweighs any of the rest of this nonsense.
Let's start with this key sentence: According to Levinson, "[the census] determines how much federal funding, how many members of congress, and how many electors to the Electoral College are allocated to each district in the nation."
Wrong. Districts all, by definition, get one member of congress. Districts to not get electors to the Electoral College except in Nebraska and Maine, but even in those states each district gets one no matter what the census shows. Even when it comes to federal funding, the census does not determine all of that. There are some programs where the census plays this roll, but many where it does not. For example, if the federal government locates a federal facility in a district, that district gets extra funding no matter what the census says. That means that this "law professor" was totally wrong on two basic facts and half wrong on a third. That's appalling for someone claiming to know the law.
Levinson also misstates other facts in her article. She claims that the citizenship question was dropped from the census in 1950. That's not true. The question was moved from the short form to the long form at that time. That means that 20% of all people were asked if they were citizens, a practice which has been continued into this century.
Levinson also indicates that asking immigrants if they are citizens will discourage legal immigrants from responding to the census. Of course, she gives no reason and offers no proof. She just says it, so it must be true.
Look, the idea that asking people if they are US citizens is a potential cause of "disaster" is about as silly a position as one can have on an important issue. It's the rough equivalent of saying that requiring presentation of a photo ID before entering a federal building will "discourage" those who are here illegally from dealing with the federal government on a whole range of issues. That may or may not be true. One thing is certain, however: there is a security reason for requiring ID to enter a federal building. That outweighs any of the rest of this nonsense.
No comments:
Post a Comment