1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,279
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Now Turning to

6
00:00:22,360 --> 00:00:25,640
Speaker 1: other news. Testifying at a House Oversight Committee hearing this morning,

7
00:00:25,680 --> 00:00:29,400
Speaker 1: Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross stuck with his contention that he

8
00:00:29,480 --> 00:00:35,040
Speaker 1: included a citizenship question on the because Justice Department officials

9
00:00:35,159 --> 00:00:39,240
Speaker 1: made a formal formal request of him. The Democratic chairman,

10
00:00:39,240 --> 00:00:42,720
Speaker 1: Elijah Cummings said documents showed that Ross had been working

11
00:00:42,720 --> 00:00:45,360
Speaker 1: to add the citizenship question from his first days at

12
00:00:45,360 --> 00:00:48,400
Speaker 1: the Commerce Department, and he gave him a chance to

13
00:00:48,479 --> 00:00:52,840
Speaker 1: change his prior testimony, which Ross refused to do. Joining

14
00:00:52,880 --> 00:00:56,120
Speaker 1: me is Richard Brafald, a professor at Columbia Law School.

15
00:00:56,680 --> 00:00:59,400
Speaker 1: Rich A lot of these documents have been made public.

16
00:00:59,520 --> 00:01:02,920
Speaker 1: There have been in two court cases on this issue.

17
00:01:03,720 --> 00:01:06,320
Speaker 1: What do you know as far as the court cases,

18
00:01:06,360 --> 00:01:09,839
Speaker 1: what they've shown you about it? Well, the two court opinions,

19
00:01:09,840 --> 00:01:11,920
Speaker 1: one from the Southern District of New York and one

20
00:01:12,000 --> 00:01:15,759
Speaker 1: from the District Court in California have both been uh,

21
00:01:15,880 --> 00:01:19,840
Speaker 1: quite devastating in terms of their interpretation their reading of

22
00:01:19,920 --> 00:01:22,200
Speaker 1: what happened in terms of how the Secretary made the

23
00:01:22,240 --> 00:01:26,720
Speaker 1: decision to add the citizenship question. Both really what happened?

24
00:01:26,720 --> 00:01:29,440
Speaker 1: I say it sort of express deep doubts about the

25
00:01:29,480 --> 00:01:32,160
Speaker 1: candor of the Secretary and indicate that there's a lot

26
00:01:32,200 --> 00:01:36,440
Speaker 1: of evidence that one of the decision was written. They

27
00:01:36,480 --> 00:01:38,680
Speaker 1: decide the idea of doing this began very very early

28
00:01:38,720 --> 00:01:41,360
Speaker 1: in the administration, long in advance of any letter from

29
00:01:41,400 --> 00:01:43,720
Speaker 1: the Justice Department. And two that the letter from the

30
00:01:43,760 --> 00:01:47,360
Speaker 1: Justice Department itself originated from pressure in part from the

31
00:01:47,400 --> 00:01:49,800
Speaker 1: Commerce Department to get such a letter that we give

32
00:01:49,840 --> 00:01:53,680
Speaker 1: them the excuse for adopting the rule on the citizenship questions.

33
00:01:53,720 --> 00:01:56,560
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of evidence in the court records

34
00:01:56,600 --> 00:01:59,919
Speaker 1: that cut very much against what the Secretary has been saying.

35
00:02:01,120 --> 00:02:04,240
Speaker 1: Would it make sense that the Justice Department at this

36
00:02:04,320 --> 00:02:09,359
Speaker 1: time would need information like that to enforce the Voting

37
00:02:09,440 --> 00:02:12,720
Speaker 1: Rights Act? Um? A lot of people say, no, Uh,

38
00:02:12,760 --> 00:02:15,320
Speaker 1: they've been it's been done. The Voting Rights Act has

39
00:02:15,320 --> 00:02:19,720
Speaker 1: been enforced rather successfully without this question for some time. Uh.

40
00:02:19,760 --> 00:02:23,560
Speaker 1: And they until until they were repeatedly proded by Commerce

41
00:02:23,800 --> 00:02:26,280
Speaker 1: they had expressed no interest in this now or in

42
00:02:26,360 --> 00:02:31,240
Speaker 1: prior voting rights prior presidential administrations which may have which

43
00:02:31,240 --> 00:02:33,400
Speaker 1: were more known for their aggressive enforcement of the Voting

44
00:02:33,480 --> 00:02:37,640
Speaker 1: Rights Act. Now, from what I understand, even people in

45
00:02:37,680 --> 00:02:41,359
Speaker 1: the Commerce Department, the experts in this area, which includes

46
00:02:41,400 --> 00:02:45,519
Speaker 1: the Census Bureau, said the question could result in undercounting

47
00:02:45,680 --> 00:02:50,000
Speaker 1: the state's non citizen population, and they've prepared methods to

48
00:02:50,040 --> 00:02:53,000
Speaker 1: sort of mitigate the shortfall if it happens. Right now,

49
00:02:53,000 --> 00:02:55,520
Speaker 1: there's there's a lot there's well established evidence that if

50
00:02:55,560 --> 00:02:58,560
Speaker 1: you ask this question, uh, even if you're known to

51
00:02:58,560 --> 00:03:01,200
Speaker 1: be asking this question, some people will simply not fill

52
00:03:01,240 --> 00:03:04,480
Speaker 1: out the form whether their non citizens themselves, where they

53
00:03:04,520 --> 00:03:07,600
Speaker 1: simply have non citizens and their families. Uh, some households

54
00:03:07,639 --> 00:03:10,280
Speaker 1: will have a mixture of citizens and non citizens, and

55
00:03:10,360 --> 00:03:14,519
Speaker 1: that people will be uncertain, world doubt the secrecy of

56
00:03:14,560 --> 00:03:16,760
Speaker 1: the census results. They're supposed to be confidential, but they'll

57
00:03:16,800 --> 00:03:19,320
Speaker 1: be nervous about it, and they'll be nervous that even

58
00:03:19,360 --> 00:03:24,000
Speaker 1: if they are uh here legitimately with proper documentation, UM,

59
00:03:24,120 --> 00:03:27,400
Speaker 1: they may be nervous that this will have some negative

60
00:03:27,400 --> 00:03:30,239
Speaker 1: reaction for them. So there's a lot of concern that

61
00:03:30,320 --> 00:03:32,679
Speaker 1: this will this if this question is asked, that it

62
00:03:32,720 --> 00:03:35,160
Speaker 1: will exacerbate the undercount and lead to us to be

63
00:03:35,480 --> 00:03:40,040
Speaker 1: an improper count. Let's discuss this case that's coming before

64
00:03:40,080 --> 00:03:45,720
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court on the census. Will Ross's testimony about

65
00:03:45,800 --> 00:03:49,560
Speaker 1: this and his different Uh well, let's say, well Ross's

66
00:03:49,600 --> 00:03:53,360
Speaker 1: testimony about this and his position on this be part

67
00:03:53,400 --> 00:03:56,640
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court case or not. It will be

68
00:03:56,680 --> 00:03:58,640
Speaker 1: in the record as far as I know. I mean,

69
00:03:58,880 --> 00:04:01,480
Speaker 1: that's that's what the Supreme Court technically doing is it

70
00:04:01,560 --> 00:04:04,640
Speaker 1: is reviewing the decision of Judge Furman in New York

71
00:04:05,000 --> 00:04:07,119
Speaker 1: on taking the case up before the before the case

72
00:04:07,160 --> 00:04:09,240
Speaker 1: went through the Court of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

73
00:04:09,600 --> 00:04:11,360
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if they have yet added the case

74
00:04:11,360 --> 00:04:13,920
Speaker 1: out of California, but everyone expects that they will, in

75
00:04:14,040 --> 00:04:17,080
Speaker 1: part because the the the issue of what of the

76
00:04:17,200 --> 00:04:19,479
Speaker 1: questions on the senses really has to be decided fairly soon.

77
00:04:19,800 --> 00:04:21,640
Speaker 1: There really has to be decision. I think some people

78
00:04:21,680 --> 00:04:24,240
Speaker 1: think by June. So there is a closed record and

79
00:04:24,320 --> 00:04:27,839
Speaker 1: some sense of the question is the judge fermantly made

80
00:04:27,839 --> 00:04:30,960
Speaker 1: a conclusion a constitutional question but purely in the Administrative

81
00:04:30,960 --> 00:04:34,520
Speaker 1: Procedure Act that the way in which the decision was

82
00:04:34,600 --> 00:04:37,360
Speaker 1: made to add this question failed to comply with the

83
00:04:37,360 --> 00:04:40,440
Speaker 1: Administrative Procedure Act. So there is a record on that.

84
00:04:40,560 --> 00:04:42,960
Speaker 1: So I don't know that this will be and it's

85
00:04:43,000 --> 00:04:45,040
Speaker 1: possible that the lawyers will try and get some of

86
00:04:45,120 --> 00:04:47,680
Speaker 1: it in UM, but I think there already is a

87
00:04:47,720 --> 00:04:52,560
Speaker 1: complete record now. This second judge in California, Judge Seaborg,

88
00:04:52,680 --> 00:04:57,839
Speaker 1: wrote that the inclusion of the citizenship question on threatens

89
00:04:57,880 --> 00:05:01,200
Speaker 1: the very foundation of our demock radic system and does

90
00:05:01,240 --> 00:05:04,440
Speaker 1: so based on a self defeating rationale. As you mentioned,

91
00:05:04,560 --> 00:05:10,040
Speaker 1: two judges both times saying the citizenship question shouldn't be included.

92
00:05:10,520 --> 00:05:14,200
Speaker 1: But looking at the Supreme Court, do you see with

93
00:05:14,320 --> 00:05:19,240
Speaker 1: this more conservative court a different opinion there? Well again

94
00:05:19,360 --> 00:05:22,159
Speaker 1: and and certainly uh, two of the judges have already

95
00:05:22,480 --> 00:05:25,159
Speaker 1: in uh, in separate opinions connected with the decision to

96
00:05:25,200 --> 00:05:28,400
Speaker 1: take the case. I have expressed some doubts about what

97
00:05:28,560 --> 00:05:30,240
Speaker 1: Judge Ferman in New York did. It was in a

98
00:05:30,520 --> 00:05:33,480
Speaker 1: sort of an opinion by Justice Corsip Corshs, I think,

99
00:05:33,600 --> 00:05:36,440
Speaker 1: joined by Justice Thomas Um. I mean, at least the

100
00:05:37,000 --> 00:05:39,560
Speaker 1: Ferman case, the New York case will focus really about

101
00:05:39,560 --> 00:05:43,440
Speaker 1: administrative procedures and in theory should be whatever the views

102
00:05:43,480 --> 00:05:46,440
Speaker 1: are about how the sensors should be wrong. The question

103
00:05:46,480 --> 00:05:49,840
Speaker 1: really is did the did the Commerce Department follow the rules?

104
00:05:50,160 --> 00:05:53,400
Speaker 1: Did they do the kinds of review uh necessary to

105
00:05:53,440 --> 00:05:55,880
Speaker 1: a nick major change like this that the law requires,

106
00:05:56,800 --> 00:05:59,360
Speaker 1: as I, as advocates of the question will point out,

107
00:05:59,520 --> 00:06:03,160
Speaker 1: pointed out and many times in the past a citizens

108
00:06:03,200 --> 00:06:05,560
Speaker 1: citizenship question was part of the census of aways think

109
00:06:05,560 --> 00:06:08,479
Speaker 1: the last time was either in or nineteen sixty, So

110
00:06:08,520 --> 00:06:11,160
Speaker 1: it is a big departure in the last many decades.

111
00:06:11,480 --> 00:06:14,200
Speaker 1: It's not out of a question for that question to

112
00:06:14,200 --> 00:06:16,560
Speaker 1: be asked, but there is a real downside to it

113
00:06:16,600 --> 00:06:20,360
Speaker 1: in terms of reducing the accuracy of the count. And

114
00:06:20,400 --> 00:06:22,880
Speaker 1: I think, what what the departments coartment should have done

115
00:06:22,920 --> 00:06:24,640
Speaker 1: if I wanted to ask this question was due a

116
00:06:24,680 --> 00:06:28,200
Speaker 1: legitimate review of whether of the benefits of the of

117
00:06:28,240 --> 00:06:31,279
Speaker 1: the question versus the harms and the allegations that have

118
00:06:31,320 --> 00:06:33,560
Speaker 1: been made by the people challenging this, And the finding

119
00:06:33,600 --> 00:06:36,039
Speaker 1: I think in both the New York and California courts

120
00:06:36,240 --> 00:06:38,839
Speaker 1: is that they failed to do the kind of assessment

121
00:06:39,240 --> 00:06:42,280
Speaker 1: that the Administrative Procedures Act normally requires. All Right, thanks

122
00:06:42,320 --> 00:06:45,200
Speaker 1: so much. Rich as always, will be keeping our eyes

123
00:06:45,320 --> 00:06:47,400
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court for the final answer to this.

124
00:06:47,560 --> 00:06:54,520
Speaker 1: That's Richard Brofald, a professor at Columbia Law School. Thanks

125
00:06:54,520 --> 00:06:57,839
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe

126
00:06:57,839 --> 00:07:00,920
Speaker 1: and listen to the show on Apple podcast US, SoundCloud,

127
00:07:01,000 --> 00:07:04,920
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

128
00:07:05,400 --> 00:07:12,200
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg m