The ACLU asked the Supreme Court to delay handing down its decision in the census citizenship case so that the trial court could consider new evidence that the group recently had put forward.
The extraordinary request comes as the justices are expected to rule in the case within the next three weeks. The parties had been operating under and end-of-June deadline for the census forms to be sent to the printer.
However, the ACLU pointed to testimony from one of the government’s own witnesses indicating that the Census Bureau could wait until October 31 to finalize the forms.
“If this Court does not affirm [the lower court decision striking down the question] it should withhold judgment until the serious issues raised by the newly discovered evidence are probed by the district court, after which the Court can issue a decision based on the complete record,” the ACLU’s filing said.
The new evidence is files from a now-deceased GOP gerrymandering guru, Thomas Hofeller, suggesting that he played a more pivotal role than previously known in getting the question added to the census and that his reasons for advocating for the question were partisan in nature.
The files were found on back-up hard drives obtained by his estranged daughter, who provided them for a separate, redistricting case in North Carolina. The challengers in the North Carolina case are being represented by the same law firm that is assisting the ACLU in the census lawsuit.
“The Court should not bless the Secretary’s decision without answers to outstanding questions going to the heart of the case—all of which should have been properly reflected in the Administrative Record,” the ACLU told the Supreme Court Wednesday.
The Trump administration has claimed that the reason it was adding the question to the census was to enhance Voting Rights Act enforcement — a rationale three lower courts have said was pretextual in their decisions striking down the question.
Hofeller’s files support this finding, the ACLU has said. Among them was a secret study he wrote in 2015 that said a census citizenship question was necessary to overhaul redistricting in a way that would boost the GOP and white voters. His files also include a document laying out the VRA justification that was included, verbatim, in a draft justification that was given a Justice Department official as the official was working on the administration’s official request for the question.
The new evidence, the ACLU said in its Wednesday filing, “indicates that Commerce understood that adding a citizenship question would enable redistricting methods harmful to voters of color, and that Commerce knew that the VRA rationale was a pretext for that real motivation: i.e., that the purpose of adding a citizenship question was not to protect minority voting rights, but to dilute them.”
The Department of Justice has denied that there was any connection between the formal request for the question and the 2015 Hofeller study.
This is a good move by the ACLU, and in a law case it really should work so the SC is only invoked once the rest of the legal process has worked out. If the question can still be added up to October, then there is no reason for them to push it through. And, the evidence is pretty damning…a verbatim paragraph cannot appear coincidentally in another document, it has to have been sent along in some way, and it’s really important in this case that the process is understood. The entire process really is based on a racist premise to grow Republican party power, and if the SC lets the process stand they will be turning their back on the Constitution as well as fair elections and ethical government. The ACLU just let the SC know that those are the consequences if they charge ahead instead of evaluating the process properly…the question remains if the Republican judges will do their duty or follow the will of the party to win elections at any cost.
I believe in football this is called a Hail Mary pass, good luck ACLU the SCOTUS should not issue a decision but there is a 99% chance they will regardless of the fact that the record from the lower court is not complete.
“Bill. Get Squee and Timmy on the phone. They 'em they can’t let the Treasurer wimp out. Tell 'em everybody will get a free lifetime membership at Mar-a-Lago providing Bretty Crybaby comes through on this. It’s a world class resort, the best in the world.”
I suspect some restrictions will apply.
I believe the consequences you speak of should include packing the court. At least one extra Justice for each one Trump submitted.
This can come across as somewhat arbitrary - I like to proposal to expand the Supreme Court to include one Justice for each appellate court (13). Nice, clean and justifiable…