# Supreme Court looks likely to approve Census citizenship question by 5-4 vote **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 25, 2019, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025 "2019-04-25T05:30:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/121 "2019-04-27T22:26:05Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I think the lack of standing argument has merit. This has always bugged me. Not this specific case but the notion of standing. I understand the principle and it makes sense but it seems to me a court ruling that someone does not have standing should tell us who does have standing. And there should never, ever, be a situation where no one has standing. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/122 "2019-04-27T22:58:40Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > One reason would be to provide for a properly run election. Knowing that only citizens can vote it would not be unreasonable to provide for a particular ratio of citizens of voting age to polling places without regard to number of residents. > > Community A has a population of 100,000 people. Census data shows that 25% (25,000) are not citizens. Of the 75% (75,000) who are citizens, 20% of those (15,000) are not of voting age leaving only 60,000 eligible voters. If the recommendation is for only polling place for every 1000 eligible voters then Community A needs 6 polling places. > > Community B has a population of 100,000 people. Census data shows 12.5% (12,500) are not citizens. Of the 87.5% (87,500) who are citizens, 20% of those (17,500) are not of voting age leaving only 80,000 eligible voters. If the recommendation is for one polling place for every 1000 eligible voters then Community B needs 8 polling places. > Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Census data ends up being used in many ways. Well, that \*could \*be true if the Community didn’t have an actual list of the registered voters, which would give them a much more accurate number of people to expect at the pools. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2019, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/123 "2019-04-28T00:17:30Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > My complaint would be with the third party, not with the law. There’s no law requiring what is being discussed. Do you doubt that the only reason this question was added was to change the outcome of the census in favor of whiter states? ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2019, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/124 "2019-04-28T05:56:47Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Well, that \*could \*be true if the Community didn’t have an actual list of the registered voters, which would give them a much more accurate number of people to expect at the pools. Which would work if we ban same day voter registration, but that is oft argued as being a voter suppression measure. And having too few polling places for eligible voters, particularly in poorer minority communities, is also a commonly cited voter suppression tactic. … and good catch to the poster who noted I was off by a factor of 10. Posting while tired does not make for accurate mental calculations. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/125 "2019-04-29T17:34:29Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > …And I am the Queen of Romania. So you’re admitting that _you’re_ not a U.S. citizen? ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2019, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/126 "2019-04-29T19:51:33Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The constitution says that the census should be conducted in such a way as congress shall by law direct. > Congress passed a law that says the Secretary of Commerce shall conduct the census in such a form and content as he may determine. Furthermore, the “the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary” Necessary for what? The statute doesn’t say. Perhaps there is some way some institution could weigh in on this and perhaps decide whether or not the question is in fact necessary for something. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2019, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/127 "2019-04-29T20:59:21Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Then why does “citizenship” matter then? Well the claim by the GOP states is that it will help them better compy with the Voting rights Act (which was largely defanged by the Supreme court a few years ago). The idea being that in order to be sure that they don’t accidentally discriminate against Hispainc populations it is necessary to know what proportions of Hisoanics in a district can actually vote so they don’t accidentally make what they think is a Hispanic majoirty district but is is only a minority Hispanic as far as eligible voters goes. Of course given that the GOP states are doing everything under their power to disfranchise all minorities, this is rather like Nazi’s claiming that they need to know where the Jews are so they can better protect them from persecution (although obviously less extreme in terms of consequences). ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2019, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/128 "2019-04-29T21:08:00Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Well the claim by the GOP states is that it will help them better compy with the Voting rights Act (which was largely defanged by the Supreme court a few years ago). The idea being that in order to be sure that they don’t accidentally discriminate against Hispainc populations it is necessary to know what proportions of Hisoanics in a district can actually vote so they don’t accidentally make what they think is a Hispanic majoirty district but is is only a minority Hispanic as far as eligible voters goes. > > … Except “Hispanic” is not an issue of citizenship. Remove the citizenship question and the census is still going to ask about race and ethnic origin. And the Supreme Court threw out the portions of the Voting Rights Act that relied on old outdated data. If only there was a way to get updated data? Hmmm… ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2019, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/129 "2019-04-29T21:26:08Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Except “Hispanic” is not an issue of citizenship. Remove the citizenship question and the census is still going to ask about race and ethnic origin. > > And the Supreme Court threw out the portions of the Voting Rights Act that relied on old outdated data. If only there was a way to get updated data? Hmmm… What they claim is that they, wanting to do everything in their power to protect the voting rights of their brown brethren, might try to create a district that was 60% Hispanic voters to guarantee that this ethnic group will be able to elect someone who represents their needs. But, lacking a citizenship question, they didn’t realize that a large number of those Hispanics couldn’t vote, so that, horror of horrors, only 40% of the eligible voters are Hispanic and it turns out to be a majority white district. If only the evil Democrats hadn’t hidden the truth from the straight shooting Republican legislature those Hispanics wouldn’t have been disenfranchised. So who’s the real racist here? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2019, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/130 "2019-04-30T03:39:21Z")
You do realize that you would likely need citizenship level census data to prove the dastardly scheme you allege, right? The part of the Voting Rights Act that was ruled unconstitutional was Section 4(b) which determined which localities were subject to federal pre-clearance of changes to voting procedures. Section 4(b) was ruled unconstitutional because it relied on data such as whether ethic or minority groups in 1975 in a particular location had a lower voter registration rate than Whites. The Supreme Court decided that the data from 1975 was no longer relevant but did not rule unconstitutional section 5 which contains the pre-clearance provisions. In essence the court said that having and using more current data was key to whether section 4(b) was constitutional leaving open to Congress to update the Voting Rights Act by legislative changes as they had done at least twice since its initial enactment. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/131 "2019-05-08T21:07:06Z")
> [@Bayaker](#): > > It seems ridiculous to me that a question about citizenship would be any more invasive than many of the other questions on the census, and I don’t care if it’s included or not. A decennial enumeration for congressional apportionment should be just that - a head count, and no more. I find the questions about race, income, and possessions to be especially over-the-top. It’s none of anybody’s business. I say do away with them all except “how many people live here?” I would suggest that (1) You are not a migrant, and (2) Your parents weren’t old enough to remember WWII. My parents were both, and retained a fear of being treated as non-citizens by the government, as were the Jews (in Euorope) and the Japanese (in the USA) and the Italians (in Aus) during WWII. I don’t remember WWII except by remote association: I was young enough so that all my parents friends and relations were veterans, (and my mother was a doctor) and we were accutely aware of what happens when people are decleared as non-people. In my country, there have been a string of well publicised cases of people finding, to their surprise, that they are citizens of a foreign country, when they run for political office or when they are convicted of crimes, and who are subsequently deported or denied employment for something that happened before they were born. My parents couldn’t conceal their immigrant status, but it was by no means something they wanted to keep on record. And one relative routinely “simplified” his country of birth, just to avoid purely hypothetical problems inspired by his observation of the treatement of “foreigners” in an occupied country in the 1940’s. In Aus, questions about origin and ethnicity, when included (it was contentious) were routinely put at the very end of the census form, and made optional, because the experience of the census office was that, on test experiments, people stopped filling in the form when they came to questions that they did not wish to answer - and that was particularly questions about origin and ethnicity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025.md?page=6)