Deceased G.O.P. Strategist’s Hard Drives Reveal New Details on the Census Citizenship Question

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
What I find interesting is all these TRUMp supporters who support the citizenship question need to read this -- it is very damning!
"The disclosures represent the most explicit evidence to date that the Trump administration added the question to the 2020 census to advance Republican Party interests."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/census-citizenship-question-hofeller.html

ASHINGTON — Thomas B. Hofeller achieved near-mythic status in the Republican Party as the Michelangelo of gerrymandering, the architect of partisan political maps that cemented the party’s dominance across the country.

But after he died last summer, his estranged daughter discovered hard drives in her father’s home that revealed something else: Mr. Hofeller had played a crucial role in the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

Files on those drives showed that he wrote a study in 2015 concluding that adding a citizenship question to the census would allow Republicans to draft even more extreme gerrymandered maps to stymie Democrats. And months after urging President Trump’s transition team to tack the question onto the census, he wrote the key portion of a draft Justice Department letter claiming the question was needed to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act — the rationale the administration later used to justify its decision.

Those documents, cited in a federal court filing Thursday by opponents seeking to block the citizenship question, have emerged only weeks before the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the legality of the citizenship question. Critics say adding the question would deter many immigrants from being counted and shift political power to Republican areas.

The disclosures represent the most explicit evidence to date that the Trump administration added the question to the 2020 census to advance Republican Party interests.

[Inside the Trump administration’s fight to add a citizenship question to the census]

In Supreme Court arguments in April over the legality of the decision, the Trump administration argued that the benefits of obtaining more accurate citizenship data offset any damage stemming from the likely depressed response to the census by minority groups and noncitizens. And it dismissed charges that the Commerce Department had simply invented a justification for adding the question to the census as unsupported by the evidence.

The disclosures represent the most explicit evidence to date that the Trump administration added the question to the 2020 census to advance Republican Party interests.

[Inside the Trump administration’s fight to add a citizenship question to the census]

In Supreme Court arguments in April over the legality of the decision, the Trump administration argued that the benefits of obtaining more accurate citizenship data offset any damage stemming from the likely depressed response to the census by minority groups and noncitizens. And it dismissed charges that the Commerce Department had simply invented a justification for adding the question to the census as unsupported by the evidence.
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,580
1,629
136
If this is all true then some people perjured themselves in court lying about the effects of adding this question. If SCOTUS rules to allow the question then this gives another avenue for a new case to be brought forward. It's going to be interesting to see how this all pans out.

That it was his daughter than brought this forward is really something. We owe her some BIG thanks!
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,088
30,442
136
Gee, I really thought the GOP was legitimately concerned about voter fraud. Don't I feel like an idiot now. Can't have that. Must be fake news. Ahhhhhh, so much better. Carry on libtards.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,990
37,161
136
That is really one hell of a story.

I mean it's not often that their strategy is laid so bare and in their own words. Also lol at people who might have said some very not true things in court.

I was of a mind that SCOTUS would allow the citizenship question and that it was basically done. This development moves it to a tossup for me. I mean I'm pretty confident in most of the conservatives ability to make up some incredible bullshit even in light of this but it might be a bridge too far for a couple.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
damn. too bad he didn't "bleach" his hard drives. whateverthefuck that means.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
That is really one hell of a story.

I mean it's not often that their strategy is laid so bare and in their own words. Also lol at people who might have said some very not true things in court.

I was of a mind that SCOTUS would allow the citizenship question and that it was basically done. This development moves it to a tossup for me. I mean I'm pretty confident in most of the conservatives ability to make up some incredible bullshit even in light of this but it might be a bridge too far for a couple.

Roberts is the new Kennedy, strangely enough. You can pretty much bank on Thomas going against himself at every single turn if necessary, like Scalia would, as long as it would make for the most obviously evil and ridiculous decision in that case, but I maintain some sort of strange faith that Roberts is the type of guy that seems legitimately wary of this court and it's very easy slide into abject loony toons circus time, and he doesn't want his name stamped on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: esquared

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,681
8,060
136
Roberts is the new Kennedy, strangely enough. You can pretty much bank on Thomas going against himself at every single turn if necessary, like Scalia would, as long as it would make for the most obviously evil and ridiculous decision in that case, but I maintain some sort of strange faith that Roberts is the type of guy that seems legitimately wary of this court and it's very easy slide into abject loony toons circus time, and he doesn't want his name stamped on that.
Roberts wrote the opinion in Shelby County v. Holder.

He might try to sound reasonable, but he's just as in on destroying this country as the rest of the Republican party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Roberts wrote the opinion in Shelby County v. Holder.

He might try to sound reasonable, but he's just as in on destroying this country as the rest of the Republican party.

I know that I'm hoping against reason here, but I think the dynamics are completely different for him now. Before he could depend on Kennedy swinging if he wanted to go with a morally ambiguous and illogical argument, now it's all on him. He has pure, dependable crazy sitting on one side of him now. ...this is what I tell myself, anyway.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,671
28,824
136
Are we really shocked Republicans hatch more plans to disenfranchise minorities?

As much as they deny it happens more and more evidence to the contrary surfaces.

Ever wonder why in state after state Democrats win the majority yet maintain minority status in various state legislators. Sounds like Republican version of apartheid.
 

pete6032

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2010
7,664
3,206
136
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...to-supreme-court-about-new-evidence-on-census

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Thursday filed a notice to the Supreme Court of new evidence in the case against the Trump administration’s efforts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
The filings were first made in federal court in New York earlier Thursday, revealing that late Republican redistricting specialist Thomas Hofeller had played a role in the creation of the question. It’s some of the strongest evidence to date rebuking the Trump administration’s arguments that the question is intended to help enforce the Voting Rights Act.

The court filings state that Hofeller conducted a study in 2015 about potentially adding a citizenship question that found it would cause significant political damage to Latino communities and be “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites.”

Now, the Supreme Court has been notified of that evidence as the justices prepare to issue their ruling on whether the question should be added to the decennial census.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued before the justices earlier this year that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had asked the Commerce Department to add the query back to the census in order to ensure it had accurate data in enforcing the Voting Rights Act.

But a group of 20 states led by New York, as well as a coalition of groups headed by the ACLU and House Democrats, claimed in court that asking the question would cause an inaccurate population count.

Census data is used for federal funding and drawing congressional districts.

It’s unclear what role this new evidence will play in the court’s decision, as the conservative majority appeared poised to allow the question’s addition to the census.

But it bolsters the argument that the addition of the question could have been politically motivated.

The letter filed in federal court in New York, and included in the ACLU’s notice to the Supreme Court, claims that the new evidence contradicts sworn statements made by Justice Department official John Gore and A. Mark Neuman, an expert adviser to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

The filing claims that Neuman said that Hofeller was the “first person” to suggest the administration add a question on citizenship to the 2020 census.

And it states that Hofeller wrote some of a draft letter arguing for the addition of the question. That draft document was first written by Neuman, who then gave it to Gore, according to the letter filed Thursday.

“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,” the letter states.

The documents were uncovered as part of the group Common Cause’s separate partisan gerrymandering lawsuit in North Carolina.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,690
8,891
146
heh. I guess I didn't know it actually had a "source"

Well, I think now it's just taken on a generic term of "bleaching a harddrive". I've heard laymen use the term like "can I just bleach my harddrive to get rid of all the data?"
It's like people saying "in the cloud"
Clinton's IT guy actually used bleachbit when he "scrubbed" her hard drives so it entered the mainstream commentary at that point. Anyone with any kind of tech knowledge now just uses it as a punchline to mock the unknowing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,920
5,543
136
Any minute now our conservative posters will come along and tell us they were wrong about the motivation behind adding this question. Any minute now........
I'll bite. It's because illegals don't get mandated representation. It's because there is a cost to them being in the country, and it's because they create a demographic that's worth tracking.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I'll bite. It's because illegals don't get mandated representation. It's because there is a cost to them being in the country, and it's because they create a demographic that's worth tracking.

The Constitution says to count all free persons. It also apportions representation on those numbers. It's very straightforward. Anything that promotes an under count violates that, which is the intention of the citizenship question. GOP rationalizations are simply lies In pursuit of unfair political advantage.

The states & munis where immigrants have settled had no say in them being there yet bear the costs of providing basic services to all residents regardless of citizenship. Part of the way they do that is with federal funds based on population. Not counting everybody places an undue burden on citizens & non-citizens alike who live in those areas. Mere fact.

Participation in the census is largely voluntary. Giving people reason to opt out obviously won't help in tracking any demographic. Your claim in that regard is obvious doublespeak.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GodisanAtheist

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,920
5,543
136
However that's not the reason why you guys want it. It's to maintain your apartheid.
That's a bizarre position to take. Are illegal's denied medical care? Are they denied education? Are they denied housing? They are technically denied jobs, but in reality they end up becoming a part of the underground economy, and that's going to get worse as verification becomes stricter.

I'm not sure why the question is so contentious, all that will happen is that illegals will lie about their status.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,507
136
I'll bite. It's because illegals don't get mandated representation. It's because there is a cost to them being in the country, and it's because they create a demographic that's worth tracking.

Aaaannnd, you're wrong. The census counts the number of alive people existing in a place, and bases representation off of that. Immigration status has no impact on whether someone is counted. Period.

Wait until fetuses are counted in heartbeat bill states.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
I'll bite. It's because illegals don't get mandated representation. It's because there is a cost to them being in the country, and it's because they create a demographic that's worth tracking.

too bad that pesky constitution exists and roundly disagrees with this argument.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
That's a bizarre position to take. Are illegal's denied medical care? Are they denied education? Are they denied housing? They are technically denied jobs, but in reality they end up becoming a part of the underground economy, and that's going to get worse as verification becomes stricter.

I'm not sure why the question is so contentious, all that will happen is that illegals will lie about their status.

Or they just won't participate in the census, which seems more likely. It's the path of least resistance & the safest.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
I'm not sure why the question is so contentious, all that will happen is that illegals will lie about their status.

Which would invalidate the data. If we knowingly put questions in the census that invalidates the data we are trying to capture that would be counterproductive to it's purpose. It is better to not ask questions that have a high chance of being untruthfully answered then to ask them and taint your data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie