WEBVTT - Ross Defends Census Question Despite Court Challenge

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.279
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Now Turning to

0:00:22.360 --> 0:00:25.640
<v Speaker 1>other news. Testifying at a House Oversight Committee hearing this morning,

0:00:25.680 --> 0:00:29.400
<v Speaker 1>Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross stuck with his contention that he

0:00:29.480 --> 0:00:35.040
<v Speaker 1>included a citizenship question on the because Justice Department officials

0:00:35.159 --> 0:00:39.240
<v Speaker 1>made a formal formal request of him. The Democratic chairman,

0:00:39.240 --> 0:00:42.720
<v Speaker 1>Elijah Cummings said documents showed that Ross had been working

0:00:42.720 --> 0:00:45.360
<v Speaker 1>to add the citizenship question from his first days at

0:00:45.360 --> 0:00:48.400
<v Speaker 1>the Commerce Department, and he gave him a chance to

0:00:48.479 --> 0:00:52.840
<v Speaker 1>change his prior testimony, which Ross refused to do. Joining

0:00:52.880 --> 0:00:56.120
<v Speaker 1>me is Richard Brafald, a professor at Columbia Law School.

0:00:56.680 --> 0:00:59.400
<v Speaker 1>Rich A lot of these documents have been made public.

0:00:59.520 --> 0:01:02.920
<v Speaker 1>There have been in two court cases on this issue.

0:01:03.720 --> 0:01:06.320
<v Speaker 1>What do you know as far as the court cases,

0:01:06.360 --> 0:01:09.839
<v Speaker 1>what they've shown you about it? Well, the two court opinions,

0:01:09.840 --> 0:01:11.920
<v Speaker 1>one from the Southern District of New York and one

0:01:12.000 --> 0:01:15.759
<v Speaker 1>from the District Court in California have both been uh,

0:01:15.880 --> 0:01:19.840
<v Speaker 1>quite devastating in terms of their interpretation their reading of

0:01:19.920 --> 0:01:22.200
<v Speaker 1>what happened in terms of how the Secretary made the

0:01:22.240 --> 0:01:26.720
<v Speaker 1>decision to add the citizenship question. Both really what happened?

0:01:26.720 --> 0:01:29.440
<v Speaker 1>I say it sort of express deep doubts about the

0:01:29.480 --> 0:01:32.160
<v Speaker 1>candor of the Secretary and indicate that there's a lot

0:01:32.200 --> 0:01:36.440
<v Speaker 1>of evidence that one of the decision was written. They

0:01:36.480 --> 0:01:38.680
<v Speaker 1>decide the idea of doing this began very very early

0:01:38.720 --> 0:01:41.360
<v Speaker 1>in the administration, long in advance of any letter from

0:01:41.400 --> 0:01:43.720
<v Speaker 1>the Justice Department. And two that the letter from the

0:01:43.760 --> 0:01:47.360
<v Speaker 1>Justice Department itself originated from pressure in part from the

0:01:47.400 --> 0:01:49.800
<v Speaker 1>Commerce Department to get such a letter that we give

0:01:49.840 --> 0:01:53.680
<v Speaker 1>them the excuse for adopting the rule on the citizenship questions.

0:01:53.720 --> 0:01:56.560
<v Speaker 1>So there's a lot of evidence in the court records

0:01:56.600 --> 0:01:59.919
<v Speaker 1>that cut very much against what the Secretary has been saying.

0:02:01.120 --> 0:02:04.240
<v Speaker 1>Would it make sense that the Justice Department at this

0:02:04.320 --> 0:02:09.359
<v Speaker 1>time would need information like that to enforce the Voting

0:02:09.440 --> 0:02:12.720
<v Speaker 1>Rights Act? Um? A lot of people say, no, Uh,

0:02:12.760 --> 0:02:15.320
<v Speaker 1>they've been it's been done. The Voting Rights Act has

0:02:15.320 --> 0:02:19.720
<v Speaker 1>been enforced rather successfully without this question for some time. Uh.

0:02:19.760 --> 0:02:23.560
<v Speaker 1>And they until until they were repeatedly proded by Commerce

0:02:23.800 --> 0:02:26.280
<v Speaker 1>they had expressed no interest in this now or in

0:02:26.360 --> 0:02:31.240
<v Speaker 1>prior voting rights prior presidential administrations which may have which

0:02:31.240 --> 0:02:33.400
<v Speaker 1>were more known for their aggressive enforcement of the Voting

0:02:33.480 --> 0:02:37.640
<v Speaker 1>Rights Act. Now, from what I understand, even people in

0:02:37.680 --> 0:02:41.359
<v Speaker 1>the Commerce Department, the experts in this area, which includes

0:02:41.400 --> 0:02:45.519
<v Speaker 1>the Census Bureau, said the question could result in undercounting

0:02:45.680 --> 0:02:50.000
<v Speaker 1>the state's non citizen population, and they've prepared methods to

0:02:50.040 --> 0:02:53.000
<v Speaker 1>sort of mitigate the shortfall if it happens. Right now,

0:02:53.000 --> 0:02:55.520
<v Speaker 1>there's there's a lot there's well established evidence that if

0:02:55.560 --> 0:02:58.560
<v Speaker 1>you ask this question, uh, even if you're known to

0:02:58.560 --> 0:03:01.200
<v Speaker 1>be asking this question, some people will simply not fill

0:03:01.240 --> 0:03:04.480
<v Speaker 1>out the form whether their non citizens themselves, where they

0:03:04.520 --> 0:03:07.600
<v Speaker 1>simply have non citizens and their families. Uh, some households

0:03:07.639 --> 0:03:10.280
<v Speaker 1>will have a mixture of citizens and non citizens, and

0:03:10.360 --> 0:03:14.519
<v Speaker 1>that people will be uncertain, world doubt the secrecy of

0:03:14.560 --> 0:03:16.760
<v Speaker 1>the census results. They're supposed to be confidential, but they'll

0:03:16.800 --> 0:03:19.320
<v Speaker 1>be nervous about it, and they'll be nervous that even

0:03:19.360 --> 0:03:24.000
<v Speaker 1>if they are uh here legitimately with proper documentation, UM,

0:03:24.120 --> 0:03:27.400
<v Speaker 1>they may be nervous that this will have some negative

0:03:27.400 --> 0:03:30.239
<v Speaker 1>reaction for them. So there's a lot of concern that

0:03:30.320 --> 0:03:32.679
<v Speaker 1>this will this if this question is asked, that it

0:03:32.720 --> 0:03:35.160
<v Speaker 1>will exacerbate the undercount and lead to us to be

0:03:35.480 --> 0:03:40.040
<v Speaker 1>an improper count. Let's discuss this case that's coming before

0:03:40.080 --> 0:03:45.720
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court on the census. Will Ross's testimony about

0:03:45.800 --> 0:03:49.560
<v Speaker 1>this and his different Uh well, let's say, well Ross's

0:03:49.600 --> 0:03:53.360
<v Speaker 1>testimony about this and his position on this be part

0:03:53.400 --> 0:03:56.640
<v Speaker 1>of the Supreme Court case or not. It will be

0:03:56.680 --> 0:03:58.640
<v Speaker 1>in the record as far as I know. I mean,

0:03:58.880 --> 0:04:01.480
<v Speaker 1>that's that's what the Supreme Court technically doing is it

0:04:01.560 --> 0:04:04.640
<v Speaker 1>is reviewing the decision of Judge Furman in New York

0:04:05.000 --> 0:04:07.119
<v Speaker 1>on taking the case up before the before the case

0:04:07.160 --> 0:04:09.240
<v Speaker 1>went through the Court of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

0:04:09.600 --> 0:04:11.360
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure if they have yet added the case

0:04:11.360 --> 0:04:13.920
<v Speaker 1>out of California, but everyone expects that they will, in

0:04:14.040 --> 0:04:17.080
<v Speaker 1>part because the the the issue of what of the

0:04:17.200 --> 0:04:19.479
<v Speaker 1>questions on the senses really has to be decided fairly soon.

0:04:19.800 --> 0:04:21.640
<v Speaker 1>There really has to be decision. I think some people

0:04:21.680 --> 0:04:24.240
<v Speaker 1>think by June. So there is a closed record and

0:04:24.320 --> 0:04:27.839
<v Speaker 1>some sense of the question is the judge fermantly made

0:04:27.839 --> 0:04:30.960
<v Speaker 1>a conclusion a constitutional question but purely in the Administrative

0:04:30.960 --> 0:04:34.520
<v Speaker 1>Procedure Act that the way in which the decision was

0:04:34.600 --> 0:04:37.360
<v Speaker 1>made to add this question failed to comply with the

0:04:37.360 --> 0:04:40.440
<v Speaker 1>Administrative Procedure Act. So there is a record on that.

0:04:40.560 --> 0:04:42.960
<v Speaker 1>So I don't know that this will be and it's

0:04:43.000 --> 0:04:45.040
<v Speaker 1>possible that the lawyers will try and get some of

0:04:45.120 --> 0:04:47.680
<v Speaker 1>it in UM, but I think there already is a

0:04:47.720 --> 0:04:52.560
<v Speaker 1>complete record now. This second judge in California, Judge Seaborg,

0:04:52.680 --> 0:04:57.839
<v Speaker 1>wrote that the inclusion of the citizenship question on threatens

0:04:57.880 --> 0:05:01.200
<v Speaker 1>the very foundation of our demock radic system and does

0:05:01.240 --> 0:05:04.440
<v Speaker 1>so based on a self defeating rationale. As you mentioned,

0:05:04.560 --> 0:05:10.040
<v Speaker 1>two judges both times saying the citizenship question shouldn't be included.

0:05:10.520 --> 0:05:14.200
<v Speaker 1>But looking at the Supreme Court, do you see with

0:05:14.320 --> 0:05:19.240
<v Speaker 1>this more conservative court a different opinion there? Well again

0:05:19.360 --> 0:05:22.159
<v Speaker 1>and and certainly uh, two of the judges have already

0:05:22.480 --> 0:05:25.159
<v Speaker 1>in uh, in separate opinions connected with the decision to

0:05:25.200 --> 0:05:28.400
<v Speaker 1>take the case. I have expressed some doubts about what

0:05:28.560 --> 0:05:30.240
<v Speaker 1>Judge Ferman in New York did. It was in a

0:05:30.520 --> 0:05:33.480
<v Speaker 1>sort of an opinion by Justice Corsip Corshs, I think,

0:05:33.600 --> 0:05:36.440
<v Speaker 1>joined by Justice Thomas Um. I mean, at least the

0:05:37.000 --> 0:05:39.560
<v Speaker 1>Ferman case, the New York case will focus really about

0:05:39.560 --> 0:05:43.440
<v Speaker 1>administrative procedures and in theory should be whatever the views

0:05:43.480 --> 0:05:46.440
<v Speaker 1>are about how the sensors should be wrong. The question

0:05:46.480 --> 0:05:49.840
<v Speaker 1>really is did the did the Commerce Department follow the rules?

0:05:50.160 --> 0:05:53.400
<v Speaker 1>Did they do the kinds of review uh necessary to

0:05:53.440 --> 0:05:55.880
<v Speaker 1>a nick major change like this that the law requires,

0:05:56.800 --> 0:05:59.360
<v Speaker 1>as I, as advocates of the question will point out,

0:05:59.520 --> 0:06:03.160
<v Speaker 1>pointed out and many times in the past a citizens

0:06:03.200 --> 0:06:05.560
<v Speaker 1>citizenship question was part of the census of aways think

0:06:05.560 --> 0:06:08.479
<v Speaker 1>the last time was either in or nineteen sixty, So

0:06:08.520 --> 0:06:11.160
<v Speaker 1>it is a big departure in the last many decades.

0:06:11.480 --> 0:06:14.200
<v Speaker 1>It's not out of a question for that question to

0:06:14.200 --> 0:06:16.560
<v Speaker 1>be asked, but there is a real downside to it

0:06:16.600 --> 0:06:20.360
<v Speaker 1>in terms of reducing the accuracy of the count. And

0:06:20.400 --> 0:06:22.880
<v Speaker 1>I think, what what the departments coartment should have done

0:06:22.920 --> 0:06:24.640
<v Speaker 1>if I wanted to ask this question was due a

0:06:24.680 --> 0:06:28.200
<v Speaker 1>legitimate review of whether of the benefits of the of

0:06:28.240 --> 0:06:31.279
<v Speaker 1>the question versus the harms and the allegations that have

0:06:31.320 --> 0:06:33.560
<v Speaker 1>been made by the people challenging this, And the finding

0:06:33.600 --> 0:06:36.039
<v Speaker 1>I think in both the New York and California courts

0:06:36.240 --> 0:06:38.839
<v Speaker 1>is that they failed to do the kind of assessment

0:06:39.240 --> 0:06:42.280
<v Speaker 1>that the Administrative Procedures Act normally requires. All Right, thanks

0:06:42.320 --> 0:06:45.200
<v Speaker 1>so much. Rich as always, will be keeping our eyes

0:06:45.320 --> 0:06:47.400
<v Speaker 1>on the Supreme Court for the final answer to this.

0:06:47.560 --> 0:06:54.520
<v Speaker 1>That's Richard Brofald, a professor at Columbia Law School. Thanks

0:06:54.520 --> 0:06:57.839
<v Speaker 1>for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe

0:06:57.839 --> 0:07:00.920
<v Speaker 1>and listen to the show on Apple podcast US, SoundCloud,

0:07:01.000 --> 0:07:04.920
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:07:05.400 --> 0:07:12.200
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg m