lawfag here with a constitutional law topic - voting and the census RAISED BY A Q POST AND THE NEW SCOTUS CASE (REPOST CUZ HILL ARTICLE IN LB NOTABLES - HILL ARTICLE MAKES IS SOUND LIKE THERE IS A BIG ISSUE - IMO NO ITS A SLAM DUNK TO UPHOLD THE QUESTION - OF COURSE UNDER GUISE OF "ANALYSIS" LIKES ITS A REAL ISSUE - NOT)
the constitutution's original formula for purposes of apportionment of congress - (Art 1 section 2) counted citizens only BUT because of objections by slave holding states provided that non citizens (slaves) would count as 3/5 of a vote. Indians who were not taxed were excluded altogether.
Congress was granted full power to conduct the census in whatever way it wishes:
[The Census] shall be made … in such Manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct. (Art 1 Sec 2)
The Congress is also authorized to ask various questions in the census aside from the basic headcount by virtue of this clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
the counting formula was amended after the civil war (14th amendment) which provided for the counting of "the whole number of persons in each State…" again excluding Indians not taxed.
So the first question is: Does Congress has the power to ask whatever questions it wishes on the census? The answer is yes, provided such questions have a rational basis (ie are not legally discriminatory) THIS IS WHERE THE FIGHT IS RIGHT NOW AND GOING TO SCOTUS SOON
HOWEVER Congress delegated its constitutional authority over the census to the Dept of Commerce in the 1976 Census Act. This act permits the Dept. to use "sampling" techniques for all demographics of the survey EXCEPT for apportionment of congressional seats where ONLY the actual count may be used.
A portion of this act - U.S.C. § 141(a) - gives broad authority to the Secretary to “take a decennial census in such form and content as he may determine, including the use of sampling procedures”. In the upcoming census the Secretary added the citizenship question which is the subject of the upcoming SCOTUS case. Their argument is that asking this question "suppresses" participation in the census (LOL) but a corrupt NY judge ruled the action "arbitrary and capricous" The massive 277 page opinion is a masterpiece of political posturing and bullshit by the Court - much like the judges that used POTUS campaign statements as "evidence" of discriminatory intent - pathetic.
SO the big issue is- assuming the census determines a % of residents are not citizens can Congress or the Dept of Commerce EXLUDE them from the apportionment formula? As the law is now illegals ARE included in the census and NO citizenship or legal residency questions are included. That means that illegals are included in the apportionment of Congress - somehow that just seems plain WRONG.
And it is - while some may argue that it is fair because services are provided and money should be apportioned accordingly - that begs the question - since this population can be legally EXPELLED at any time the absurdity of this argument appears obvious.
MORE IMPORTANT, HOWEVER - is the question of the effect on legal citizens and particularly the right to vote - in apportionment cases SCOTUS has long made clear that the gold standard is "one person one vote". So the problem again becomes obvious - that is: since illegal aliens are not entitled to vote but ARE counted in the census to determine the number of persons in each Congressional district- by definition THE ONE PERSON ONE VOTED RULE IS VIOLATED!
Lawfag believes that including the citizenship question is well within the power of Congress delegated to the Commerce Secretary - AND once the number of illegals are identified in the census the next step os to exclude them from the apportionment formula - this would mean MASSIVE redistricting in RED states and PERMANENT loss of power - SCOTUS would have no choice but to uphold the one person one vote rule - TRUST THE PLAN
ARTICLE FOR FURTHER STUDY:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2054&context=caselrev