1 00:00:00,480 --> 00:00:05,720 Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:07,480 --> 00:00:11,440 Speaker 1: After lawsuits and weeks of criticism for the widespread delays 3 00:00:11,480 --> 00:00:16,000 Speaker 1: in the mail, Postmaster General Lewis Dejoi is facing more problems. 4 00:00:16,440 --> 00:00:19,919 Speaker 1: The House Oversight Committee is launching an investigation into whether 5 00:00:19,960 --> 00:00:23,960 Speaker 1: de Joy pressured employees at his former business to contribute 6 00:00:23,960 --> 00:00:27,960 Speaker 1: to Republican candidates and then reimburse them with company funds 7 00:00:27,960 --> 00:00:32,280 Speaker 1: and the guise of bonuses, in violation of campaign finance laws. 8 00:00:32,920 --> 00:00:36,760 Speaker 1: The Washington Post reported that five employees of DeJoy's former 9 00:00:36,800 --> 00:00:41,080 Speaker 1: North Carolina company, New Breed Logistics, said they were urged 10 00:00:41,120 --> 00:00:44,160 Speaker 1: by de Joy's aids or by DeJoy himself, to write 11 00:00:44,240 --> 00:00:48,120 Speaker 1: checks to Republicans and attend fundraisers at his mansion, later 12 00:00:48,120 --> 00:00:51,880 Speaker 1: to be reimbursed in bonuses. My guest is Mareth McGehee, 13 00:00:51,920 --> 00:00:55,160 Speaker 1: the executive director of Issue One, which advocates for a 14 00:00:55,200 --> 00:01:00,200 Speaker 1: stronger campaign finance laws. Merit. The basic scheme alleged here 15 00:01:00,320 --> 00:01:04,200 Speaker 1: hiding where donations come from by having employees make them 16 00:01:04,520 --> 00:01:08,200 Speaker 1: and then reimbursing them. Is that considered illegal? Well, it's 17 00:01:08,200 --> 00:01:12,280 Speaker 1: one of the bedrocks of financial and campaign finance disclosure. 18 00:01:12,680 --> 00:01:15,480 Speaker 1: That the purpose of having it is you know the 19 00:01:15,560 --> 00:01:19,720 Speaker 1: true source of the money, and so this notion of 20 00:01:19,760 --> 00:01:23,399 Speaker 1: giving in the name of another has been something that 21 00:01:23,440 --> 00:01:26,880 Speaker 1: has been illegal since the nineteen seventies in the campaign 22 00:01:26,880 --> 00:01:30,319 Speaker 1: finance context, but it's often a problem when you have 23 00:01:30,480 --> 00:01:34,880 Speaker 1: disclosure rules. People's attempts to evade those rules kind of 24 00:01:34,959 --> 00:01:38,800 Speaker 1: described the situation where getting in the name of another 25 00:01:38,920 --> 00:01:41,959 Speaker 1: is this is often referred to, is one of the 26 00:01:42,040 --> 00:01:47,240 Speaker 1: few places where both campaign finance law is clear and 27 00:01:47,360 --> 00:01:51,880 Speaker 1: it actually has, unlike many other portions of law, been 28 00:01:52,000 --> 00:01:56,440 Speaker 1: enforced robustly over the years. So there's a strong record 29 00:01:56,440 --> 00:02:01,360 Speaker 1: of enforcement precisely on this question. It doesn't get into 30 00:02:01,400 --> 00:02:04,920 Speaker 1: all the other questions of dark money, what is coordination, 31 00:02:05,560 --> 00:02:09,240 Speaker 1: all these other you know, places where lives and managed 32 00:02:09,280 --> 00:02:12,240 Speaker 1: to make it fairly murky. This is a clear black line. 33 00:02:12,760 --> 00:02:16,560 Speaker 1: So then if the joy was prosecuted for this, it 34 00:02:16,600 --> 00:02:20,640 Speaker 1: would be a pretty straightforward case. Well, you have to 35 00:02:20,639 --> 00:02:24,400 Speaker 1: show the facts, obviously, but they've had many instances of 36 00:02:24,720 --> 00:02:27,520 Speaker 1: people trying to hide some of the giving and the 37 00:02:27,600 --> 00:02:32,359 Speaker 1: name of another through bonuses, through family members. There has 38 00:02:32,400 --> 00:02:36,080 Speaker 1: been a record of many people who have tried to 39 00:02:36,200 --> 00:02:39,440 Speaker 1: go down this path, and the law, and the record 40 00:02:39,480 --> 00:02:42,239 Speaker 1: here is that if you have the facts and it 41 00:02:42,280 --> 00:02:44,919 Speaker 1: can show what happens, and you don't really have much 42 00:02:44,960 --> 00:02:49,280 Speaker 1: of an excuse for it. Companies can contribute through packs, 43 00:02:50,000 --> 00:02:54,560 Speaker 1: But what did Joy did here was reimbursing employees with 44 00:02:54,680 --> 00:02:58,960 Speaker 1: company money. Is that wrong? Well, there's a few factors 45 00:02:58,960 --> 00:03:02,200 Speaker 1: here to consider. So let's take your normal political action 46 00:03:02,240 --> 00:03:04,359 Speaker 1: committee and this could be whether it as a corporate 47 00:03:04,400 --> 00:03:07,680 Speaker 1: pack or a union pack, but especially corporate pack. The 48 00:03:07,720 --> 00:03:12,000 Speaker 1: way they generally work is that the donations to that pack, 49 00:03:12,400 --> 00:03:17,079 Speaker 1: by law, has to be voluntary. That's by law. They 50 00:03:17,080 --> 00:03:22,440 Speaker 1: cannot be compulsory. Second most executives, and this is usually 51 00:03:22,480 --> 00:03:25,919 Speaker 1: from you know, employees of a corporation. They get a 52 00:03:25,960 --> 00:03:28,680 Speaker 1: slip in their paycheck that says now at the time, 53 00:03:28,800 --> 00:03:31,760 Speaker 1: for you to make your contribution to our pack. And 54 00:03:31,800 --> 00:03:34,240 Speaker 1: then it is up to an individual to decide whetter 55 00:03:34,360 --> 00:03:36,280 Speaker 1: to do that. And there might be a point at 56 00:03:36,280 --> 00:03:38,880 Speaker 1: which you have a whole meeting and people are sitting 57 00:03:38,880 --> 00:03:41,480 Speaker 1: around a room and one of the people, usually the 58 00:03:41,520 --> 00:03:44,080 Speaker 1: general council or someone who runs the pack, gets up 59 00:03:44,080 --> 00:03:46,040 Speaker 1: with this, Well, you want to make sure your voice 60 00:03:46,080 --> 00:03:49,480 Speaker 1: is heard in Washington. Make sure you make your pack contribution. 61 00:03:49,680 --> 00:03:51,360 Speaker 1: You know, this is going to be really important for 62 00:03:51,360 --> 00:03:55,120 Speaker 1: our company. All those happened regularly and are permitted by law. 63 00:03:55,640 --> 00:03:59,120 Speaker 1: There can even be some part where somebody turns to 64 00:03:59,160 --> 00:04:01,600 Speaker 1: you if you're a high level executive and says, hey, 65 00:04:01,720 --> 00:04:05,000 Speaker 1: have you made your contribution this year? And you could, 66 00:04:05,120 --> 00:04:08,760 Speaker 1: you know, certainly feel some pressure. Even though it's supposed 67 00:04:08,760 --> 00:04:12,800 Speaker 1: to be voluntary, you could certainly conceivably feel pressure to 68 00:04:12,880 --> 00:04:15,120 Speaker 1: make that contribution to show that you want to rise 69 00:04:15,160 --> 00:04:18,919 Speaker 1: in the company. All those things happen on a regular basis. 70 00:04:18,960 --> 00:04:22,120 Speaker 1: So does it depend on how much pressure whether the 71 00:04:22,200 --> 00:04:26,799 Speaker 1: employee feels like he or she might be losing their job. 72 00:04:26,960 --> 00:04:30,800 Speaker 1: In this case, apparently there were emails were sent that 73 00:04:30,839 --> 00:04:34,560 Speaker 1: invited employees to fundraisers. They were follow up calls and 74 00:04:34,800 --> 00:04:39,320 Speaker 1: visits to employees desks. So there's the line between Okay, 75 00:04:39,360 --> 00:04:42,599 Speaker 1: at what point is something that's supposed to be voluntary 76 00:04:42,680 --> 00:04:45,839 Speaker 1: become compulsory? Right? You would have to look at the 77 00:04:45,839 --> 00:04:49,080 Speaker 1: set of facts to determine whether that occurred. Something that 78 00:04:49,120 --> 00:04:51,800 Speaker 1: was supposed to be voluntary. Hey, if you want to 79 00:04:51,839 --> 00:04:54,400 Speaker 1: get ahead of this company, you'll know what you'll do. Right. 80 00:04:54,600 --> 00:04:57,479 Speaker 1: Then you've crossed into a line but that's I'm just 81 00:04:57,600 --> 00:05:00,720 Speaker 1: drawing that picture because I think it's important understand that 82 00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:03,400 Speaker 1: that kind of happens on a regular basis every day. 83 00:05:03,720 --> 00:05:06,120 Speaker 1: Why are the line here? I think it sounds like 84 00:05:06,279 --> 00:05:08,960 Speaker 1: according to the stories that come out, it's one thing 85 00:05:09,000 --> 00:05:12,039 Speaker 1: for someone to say, hey, if you're a good company employee, 86 00:05:12,080 --> 00:05:15,200 Speaker 1: you'll give to the pack. It's a far far different 87 00:05:15,200 --> 00:05:18,400 Speaker 1: thing to say, hey, you make your contribution and I'll 88 00:05:18,440 --> 00:05:21,640 Speaker 1: make sure you know that it gets covered, or I'll 89 00:05:21,640 --> 00:05:24,279 Speaker 1: get it, cover it and any taxes based on them 90 00:05:24,680 --> 00:05:27,600 Speaker 1: on the bonus, or why don't you have your wife 91 00:05:27,640 --> 00:05:29,600 Speaker 1: to it and I'll make sure that it gets covered. 92 00:05:30,320 --> 00:05:34,599 Speaker 1: You've crossed the rubicon on legality when you start getting 93 00:05:34,640 --> 00:05:37,520 Speaker 1: into the world of you know, and I'll make sure 94 00:05:37,560 --> 00:05:40,760 Speaker 1: it gets covered. There's a separate question of whether or 95 00:05:40,800 --> 00:05:44,920 Speaker 1: not it's been voluntary based on the pressure. That's one question. 96 00:05:45,440 --> 00:05:48,200 Speaker 1: There's a very different question about whether or not any 97 00:05:48,240 --> 00:05:53,080 Speaker 1: contribution was then covered financially. I suppose a close investigation 98 00:05:53,160 --> 00:05:56,839 Speaker 1: of the books would absolutely show whether or not there 99 00:05:56,880 --> 00:06:01,719 Speaker 1: was a reimbursement of the employee contributions dollar for dollar. Yes, 100 00:06:01,800 --> 00:06:04,120 Speaker 1: And you know, it's very interesting when you look at 101 00:06:04,160 --> 00:06:06,440 Speaker 1: some of the past cases. There was one involving the 102 00:06:06,520 --> 00:06:11,680 Speaker 1: Fiesta Ball back many years ago, and uh, it almost 103 00:06:11,680 --> 00:06:16,880 Speaker 1: sounds like a repeat of many of the instances where 104 00:06:17,000 --> 00:06:23,520 Speaker 1: the x CEO of the Fiestable actually pleaded guilty in 105 00:06:23,560 --> 00:06:28,480 Speaker 1: connection with this kind of um you know, evasion and 106 00:06:29,120 --> 00:06:32,760 Speaker 1: donation in the name of another. So they say, there's 107 00:06:32,839 --> 00:06:37,000 Speaker 1: kind of a long record of where people have tried 108 00:06:37,040 --> 00:06:40,160 Speaker 1: to gain this because they want to get the political credit, 109 00:06:40,560 --> 00:06:43,640 Speaker 1: but they end up getting tripped up and in some 110 00:06:43,839 --> 00:06:45,960 Speaker 1: cases in that case they were not only crying to 111 00:06:46,000 --> 00:06:48,680 Speaker 1: excuse somebody actually went to jail, which was pretty unusual. 112 00:06:49,200 --> 00:06:51,760 Speaker 1: So yeah, you have to look at when what was 113 00:06:51,800 --> 00:06:56,360 Speaker 1: the between the donations and any reimbursements set that occurs 114 00:06:57,040 --> 00:07:00,640 Speaker 1: Nowadays we have email trails, so what was the understanding 115 00:07:01,080 --> 00:07:03,520 Speaker 1: All that comes into the mix as part of the 116 00:07:03,560 --> 00:07:07,000 Speaker 1: fact case that would be looked at. How often does 117 00:07:07,000 --> 00:07:09,640 Speaker 1: this go on across the country because this would not 118 00:07:09,760 --> 00:07:13,800 Speaker 1: have been discovered unless he had become Postmaster General and 119 00:07:13,800 --> 00:07:20,560 Speaker 1: there was all this investigation into his past. Unfortunately, these 120 00:07:20,600 --> 00:07:23,280 Speaker 1: straw downers are they as they take contributions to the 121 00:07:23,360 --> 00:07:27,040 Speaker 1: name of another are strictly prohibited. But we first have 122 00:07:27,120 --> 00:07:30,800 Speaker 1: a federal election commission that currently does not even have 123 00:07:30,880 --> 00:07:34,680 Speaker 1: a quorum. Even when they do, they're very weak and 124 00:07:34,800 --> 00:07:40,040 Speaker 1: many times, uh you know, their investigative capacity is quite limited. 125 00:07:40,040 --> 00:07:42,960 Speaker 1: It will only come cases only come to their attention 126 00:07:43,400 --> 00:07:46,400 Speaker 1: like this if there's really just been either a press 127 00:07:46,440 --> 00:07:49,440 Speaker 1: report or there's been a whistle blore. So it's kind 128 00:07:49,440 --> 00:07:52,920 Speaker 1: of hard to say how often it occurs. Usually, if 129 00:07:52,920 --> 00:07:56,760 Speaker 1: you have a decent general counsel, part of their job 130 00:07:58,040 --> 00:08:00,560 Speaker 1: to make sure you don't do some thing like this, 131 00:08:00,600 --> 00:08:04,120 Speaker 1: which is kind of one of the it's easy to do, 132 00:08:05,160 --> 00:08:08,440 Speaker 1: but it should be easy to know where the line is, 133 00:08:08,880 --> 00:08:11,440 Speaker 1: and uh, you know, to me, this is a failure 134 00:08:12,240 --> 00:08:15,760 Speaker 1: of whoever his campaign finance and company lawyers were to 135 00:08:15,800 --> 00:08:17,880 Speaker 1: make sure that they didn't cross. But it is a 136 00:08:17,920 --> 00:08:20,240 Speaker 1: pretty clear line. As they say, there's a lot of 137 00:08:20,320 --> 00:08:23,320 Speaker 1: murky lines when he comes to camping finance, and this 138 00:08:23,480 --> 00:08:27,040 Speaker 1: isn't one of them. Joyce said that he wasn't aware 139 00:08:27,120 --> 00:08:31,440 Speaker 1: that any employees felt pressured, right, there's a difference between 140 00:08:31,440 --> 00:08:36,600 Speaker 1: feeling pressured and getting reimbursed. The statute of limitation seems 141 00:08:36,640 --> 00:08:40,600 Speaker 1: to have run in this case, so he probably won't 142 00:08:40,640 --> 00:08:45,719 Speaker 1: be prosecuted federally. But apparently North Carolina. He could be 143 00:08:45,760 --> 00:08:50,720 Speaker 1: prosecuted under North Carolina laws. Yes. In fact, the Common 144 00:08:50,800 --> 00:08:55,600 Speaker 1: Cause I just saw on the news wire had just 145 00:08:55,760 --> 00:09:00,319 Speaker 1: filed a complaint in North Carolina. So that has been 146 00:09:00,360 --> 00:09:04,839 Speaker 1: brought to the attention in North Carolina. So the way 147 00:09:04,880 --> 00:09:07,719 Speaker 1: I understand that North Carolina's is not a statute of 148 00:09:07,800 --> 00:09:11,200 Speaker 1: limitations unlike federal law, which is five years. So that's 149 00:09:11,200 --> 00:09:14,640 Speaker 1: why they filed that complaint calling for an investigation of 150 00:09:14,720 --> 00:09:19,920 Speaker 1: the straw Downers scheme. Because the company was in high Point, 151 00:09:19,960 --> 00:09:23,839 Speaker 1: North Carolina, a new breed logistics would fall under North 152 00:09:23,880 --> 00:09:28,160 Speaker 1: Carolina law. Does the federal government outside of the FEC 153 00:09:28,960 --> 00:09:34,920 Speaker 1: do they often bring prosecutions for campaign finance violations? Well, 154 00:09:34,920 --> 00:09:40,560 Speaker 1: there's two ways that these investigations go. So the Federal 155 00:09:40,600 --> 00:09:46,160 Speaker 1: Election Commission can conduct an investigation and decide their administrative fine, 156 00:09:47,600 --> 00:09:50,960 Speaker 1: or if they believe that there has been a criminal violation, 157 00:09:51,080 --> 00:09:54,840 Speaker 1: usually wilful and knowing, then they get referred to the 158 00:09:54,920 --> 00:10:00,880 Speaker 1: Justice Department and there's a public Integrity section that would then, uh, 159 00:10:00,920 --> 00:10:04,319 Speaker 1: you know, take that case on and do the investigation 160 00:10:04,400 --> 00:10:07,880 Speaker 1: and bring any any you know, lawsuit against those folks. 161 00:10:07,880 --> 00:10:12,560 Speaker 1: So the Federal Election Commission does not have the ability 162 00:10:12,760 --> 00:10:17,800 Speaker 1: under current law to adjudicate any criminal willful and knowing 163 00:10:18,240 --> 00:10:22,000 Speaker 1: violation that all falls to the d o J and 164 00:10:22,080 --> 00:10:27,479 Speaker 1: the House Democrats. The Oversight Committee has launched an investigation 165 00:10:27,559 --> 00:10:31,720 Speaker 1: into this, not only for the campaign finance, but also 166 00:10:32,080 --> 00:10:35,079 Speaker 1: for the fact that he may have committed perjury the 167 00:10:35,160 --> 00:10:38,120 Speaker 1: last time he testified. Seems as if, you know, he 168 00:10:38,200 --> 00:10:41,199 Speaker 1: gave sort of a non denial denial when he when 169 00:10:41,240 --> 00:10:45,000 Speaker 1: he testified that and perjury. Would perjury be difficult to 170 00:10:45,040 --> 00:10:48,280 Speaker 1: get him on? Oh, you know, that's always a very 171 00:10:48,320 --> 00:10:51,960 Speaker 1: difficult one. And obviously this is operating in a political arena, 172 00:10:52,480 --> 00:10:55,559 Speaker 1: so you know, and the people that would have to 173 00:10:55,600 --> 00:10:58,559 Speaker 1: bring those cases, that case in a criminal court of 174 00:10:58,640 --> 00:11:01,200 Speaker 1: law again would be the Apartment of Justice. In this 175 00:11:01,280 --> 00:11:05,120 Speaker 1: Department of Justice does not seem so inclined, So you know, 176 00:11:05,360 --> 00:11:08,640 Speaker 1: it's out there. Lying to Congress should be a very 177 00:11:08,679 --> 00:11:12,439 Speaker 1: serious thing to do. Some people have, in fact, you know, 178 00:11:12,520 --> 00:11:16,079 Speaker 1: open found guilty and end up either with with criminal sentences. 179 00:11:16,480 --> 00:11:19,120 Speaker 1: But I think, look, I'm gonna say a word a 180 00:11:19,240 --> 00:11:21,959 Speaker 1: little bit, and I'm only saying this in a very 181 00:11:22,080 --> 00:11:25,400 Speaker 1: very small amount in defense of someone like to Joy. 182 00:11:26,080 --> 00:11:29,840 Speaker 1: And you know, here's a CEO type that's running a company. 183 00:11:30,360 --> 00:11:34,080 Speaker 1: And the reality is he probably is accurate and saying 184 00:11:34,120 --> 00:11:37,959 Speaker 1: he has no clue himself. I'm not I'm not saying 185 00:11:37,960 --> 00:11:41,119 Speaker 1: this is in fact the case. But often with CEOs, 186 00:11:41,200 --> 00:11:43,200 Speaker 1: you know, they don't pay a lot of attention to 187 00:11:44,200 --> 00:11:47,880 Speaker 1: u the details and stuff. Sometimes they do, and like 188 00:11:47,960 --> 00:11:50,000 Speaker 1: in the case of Charles Keating, he was he was 189 00:11:50,040 --> 00:11:54,319 Speaker 1: directing all the Keating Five activities, so he knew exactly 190 00:11:54,360 --> 00:11:57,480 Speaker 1: what was going on. But you know, in the case 191 00:11:57,559 --> 00:12:00,280 Speaker 1: of someone likes the joy, you would have us to 192 00:12:00,360 --> 00:12:03,320 Speaker 1: be able to demonstrate and perhaps there is the evidence 193 00:12:03,360 --> 00:12:06,880 Speaker 1: to show that he personally kind of was involved in 194 00:12:06,920 --> 00:12:10,040 Speaker 1: the e effort. He says he wasn't, and there wasn't 195 00:12:10,320 --> 00:12:12,560 Speaker 1: a kind of an email trail or a whistle blower 196 00:12:13,440 --> 00:12:17,240 Speaker 1: that could say yes, Mr de Joy himself was involved 197 00:12:17,240 --> 00:12:20,880 Speaker 1: in this. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that 198 00:12:21,080 --> 00:12:24,040 Speaker 1: he didn't know, because a lot of you know, business 199 00:12:24,080 --> 00:12:27,640 Speaker 1: types don't think they can be bothered. The answer of 200 00:12:27,720 --> 00:12:32,040 Speaker 1: that is always he should know, right And in this case, 201 00:12:32,080 --> 00:12:34,720 Speaker 1: we'll see if there is a record that shows he 202 00:12:34,840 --> 00:12:38,280 Speaker 1: personally was involved. And you know, with me, some of 203 00:12:38,320 --> 00:12:41,000 Speaker 1: these decisions, so that's a matter of again, that's a 204 00:12:41,040 --> 00:12:44,640 Speaker 1: matter of fact that a thorough investigation could actually determine 205 00:12:45,280 --> 00:12:48,000 Speaker 1: that would be left to the state of North Carolina. Then, 206 00:12:48,400 --> 00:12:51,840 Speaker 1: based on the information so far public, it looks like 207 00:12:51,920 --> 00:12:54,800 Speaker 1: most of this activity so far has been beyond the 208 00:12:54,880 --> 00:12:58,720 Speaker 1: statute of five year statute of limitations. Now there's a 209 00:12:58,720 --> 00:13:02,360 Speaker 1: separate question whether or not he remains a Postmaster general. 210 00:13:02,640 --> 00:13:06,680 Speaker 1: That's a different question. It's not legal but political. Thanks 211 00:13:06,720 --> 00:13:09,680 Speaker 1: so much for being on the show, Meredith. That's Mareth McGee, 212 00:13:09,880 --> 00:13:15,760 Speaker 1: Executive director of Issue One. Census has been a legal 213 00:13:15,800 --> 00:13:18,920 Speaker 1: mine field, with one trip to the Supreme Court over 214 00:13:18,920 --> 00:13:21,719 Speaker 1: the edition of a citizenship question and with more than 215 00:13:21,800 --> 00:13:26,880 Speaker 1: four cases now pending against the Trump administration over the census. Now, 216 00:13:26,920 --> 00:13:30,120 Speaker 1: a federal judge in California has ordered the Census Bureau 217 00:13:30,200 --> 00:13:34,680 Speaker 1: to stop winding down operations until hearing next week. Joining 218 00:13:34,679 --> 00:13:37,720 Speaker 1: me is Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollandon Knight, tell 219 00:13:37,840 --> 00:13:41,959 Speaker 1: us about Judge Lucy Coe's order. So Judge Lucy Co 220 00:13:42,360 --> 00:13:46,280 Speaker 1: issued a temporary injunction this weekend. She's in the Northern 221 00:13:46,320 --> 00:13:49,920 Speaker 1: District of California, and there's two aspects of the census case. 222 00:13:49,960 --> 00:13:53,440 Speaker 1: So this aspect is called the winding down aspect. She 223 00:13:53,559 --> 00:13:56,960 Speaker 1: said that the winding down aspect of the census case, 224 00:13:57,360 --> 00:14:02,480 Speaker 1: which means that the government wanted to stop counting the 225 00:14:02,520 --> 00:14:05,920 Speaker 1: amount of people who hadn't applied for the census, already 226 00:14:06,000 --> 00:14:09,360 Speaker 1: using the online and other methods to enter the census. 227 00:14:09,720 --> 00:14:14,199 Speaker 1: They were supposed to stop on October, and instead it 228 00:14:14,360 --> 00:14:16,960 Speaker 1: was stopping on September thirty if they got moved up 229 00:14:17,000 --> 00:14:20,560 Speaker 1: a month, and in fact, people were already getting fired 230 00:14:20,600 --> 00:14:23,880 Speaker 1: by the Census Bureau and they were already getting wound down. 231 00:14:24,440 --> 00:14:27,840 Speaker 1: So the court judge co eatued a temporary restraining order 232 00:14:27,880 --> 00:14:31,760 Speaker 1: saying stopped doing that, stop firing people, stop winding this down, 233 00:14:32,400 --> 00:14:36,800 Speaker 1: and continue with whoever you have on staff counting people 234 00:14:36,840 --> 00:14:40,840 Speaker 1: who haven't been responsive to the census like you were 235 00:14:40,880 --> 00:14:43,720 Speaker 1: intending to do, which was going to be a deadline 236 00:14:43,760 --> 00:14:48,880 Speaker 1: of October to the October thirtieth deadline come about because 237 00:14:48,920 --> 00:14:52,720 Speaker 1: of COVID nineteen was the end of September, the original deadline. 238 00:14:52,960 --> 00:14:57,120 Speaker 1: It was changed and then changed back correct. What actually 239 00:14:57,160 --> 00:14:59,880 Speaker 1: happened was the original deadline was at the end of April, 240 00:15:00,400 --> 00:15:03,480 Speaker 1: and because of COVID nineteen, it got moved to October. 241 00:15:03,520 --> 00:15:08,560 Speaker 1: So everybody adjusted all their operations to moving it until October, 242 00:15:09,040 --> 00:15:11,760 Speaker 1: and then suddenly in the middle of the summer in August, 243 00:15:12,280 --> 00:15:16,040 Speaker 1: the Census Bureau said, no, we're actually changing this again 244 00:15:16,680 --> 00:15:19,480 Speaker 1: and we're winding this down and we're ending this on September. 245 00:15:20,400 --> 00:15:22,840 Speaker 1: But then they started winding it down immediately if they 246 00:15:22,840 --> 00:15:27,480 Speaker 1: started firing people immediately, and so that was going to 247 00:15:27,560 --> 00:15:31,560 Speaker 1: diminish the resources available to actually count people who hadn't 248 00:15:31,600 --> 00:15:34,520 Speaker 1: responded to the census. And so the nature of these 249 00:15:34,520 --> 00:15:39,000 Speaker 1: claims are, well, that's our Venturian capricius for you to say, 250 00:15:39,080 --> 00:15:42,800 Speaker 1: because of COVID nineteen, we needed this extra time until October, 251 00:15:43,120 --> 00:15:45,040 Speaker 1: and now suddenly we don't need it. And there was 252 00:15:45,080 --> 00:15:48,560 Speaker 1: no good reason given it wasn't like there were certain 253 00:15:48,600 --> 00:15:51,600 Speaker 1: metrics of counting them had been met. They simply just 254 00:15:51,800 --> 00:15:55,480 Speaker 1: wound back the date. Is there any evidence as to 255 00:15:56,200 --> 00:15:59,720 Speaker 1: why they wound that the date? Did an order come 256 00:15:59,800 --> 00:16:04,040 Speaker 1: from above? Well, so they're One of the interesting aspects 257 00:16:04,040 --> 00:16:07,480 Speaker 1: of the case is there's a whistle blower who talked 258 00:16:07,480 --> 00:16:10,400 Speaker 1: to the court, and the court said that they have 259 00:16:10,480 --> 00:16:13,120 Speaker 1: to go through a federal whistle blower process. So that's 260 00:16:13,160 --> 00:16:16,080 Speaker 1: interesting if we find out out at some point later 261 00:16:16,800 --> 00:16:19,480 Speaker 1: what will happen with regards to that whistle blower. But 262 00:16:19,600 --> 00:16:24,360 Speaker 1: in the meantime, the other issue that's very fascinating is 263 00:16:24,920 --> 00:16:29,480 Speaker 1: that the only reason that they give is that the 264 00:16:29,520 --> 00:16:34,440 Speaker 1: administration came to some determination that the census part couldn't 265 00:16:34,480 --> 00:16:40,800 Speaker 1: be completed by December, which was what they believe is 266 00:16:40,840 --> 00:16:44,560 Speaker 1: their satutory deadlines to produce a portionment count. They said, 267 00:16:44,600 --> 00:16:48,640 Speaker 1: there's no way to do this if we collect past September, 268 00:16:50,920 --> 00:16:54,880 Speaker 1: and that wasn't something they were uncomfortable with when they 269 00:16:55,000 --> 00:16:58,520 Speaker 1: made these extension of these deadlines, So it's unclear why 270 00:16:58,560 --> 00:17:02,160 Speaker 1: they're suddenly uncomfortable with it now. And Judge co also 271 00:17:02,240 --> 00:17:08,240 Speaker 1: pointed out some conflicting statements made by a top SENUS official. Yes, correct, 272 00:17:08,359 --> 00:17:12,679 Speaker 1: there were certainly serious questions there about the accuracy of 273 00:17:12,720 --> 00:17:17,119 Speaker 1: the census data that were generated by the declaration that 274 00:17:17,280 --> 00:17:21,280 Speaker 1: individual made. Albert Fontano, who was the associate director for 275 00:17:21,680 --> 00:17:26,240 Speaker 1: the Senial Census Program. He had originally declared that the 276 00:17:26,320 --> 00:17:29,000 Speaker 1: lack of field staff would be a barrier and there 277 00:17:29,080 --> 00:17:31,439 Speaker 1: wasn't a way to do this. But at the time, 278 00:17:31,880 --> 00:17:35,679 Speaker 1: there was a May twenty six webinar organized by the 279 00:17:35,760 --> 00:17:40,359 Speaker 1: National Congress of American Indians where they've already said, we 280 00:17:40,560 --> 00:17:42,879 Speaker 1: passed the point where we could even meet the current 281 00:17:42,960 --> 00:17:47,160 Speaker 1: legislative requirement of December thirty one, we can't do that anymore. 282 00:17:47,640 --> 00:17:49,960 Speaker 1: That was sim Olsen, the head of the field operations 283 00:17:50,040 --> 00:17:54,000 Speaker 1: for Census, and so because he had said that, it 284 00:17:54,119 --> 00:17:57,160 Speaker 1: may the idea that now we have to get this 285 00:17:57,359 --> 00:18:00,920 Speaker 1: done by December thirty one, there's a way that that's 286 00:18:00,960 --> 00:18:03,199 Speaker 1: already been said that I was going to be inaccurate. 287 00:18:03,520 --> 00:18:05,520 Speaker 1: So the one reason given that we have to meet 288 00:18:05,600 --> 00:18:10,119 Speaker 1: in December thirty first deadline isn't a valid reason because 289 00:18:10,160 --> 00:18:12,359 Speaker 1: I was already known in May that we weren't going 290 00:18:12,400 --> 00:18:14,760 Speaker 1: to be able to meet that deadline. So is the 291 00:18:14,880 --> 00:18:19,680 Speaker 1: challenge to the Trump administration not counting undocumented immigrants part 292 00:18:19,680 --> 00:18:22,840 Speaker 1: of this lawsuit. Well, so there's two separate lasses that 293 00:18:23,000 --> 00:18:25,720 Speaker 1: those they're going on in parallel, and one of the 294 00:18:25,800 --> 00:18:28,960 Speaker 1: lawsuits is about this issue of whether you can count 295 00:18:29,040 --> 00:18:33,119 Speaker 1: undocumented individuals in the census. But the real basis for 296 00:18:33,200 --> 00:18:36,199 Speaker 1: these plains that are being made at the moment in 297 00:18:36,280 --> 00:18:40,080 Speaker 1: these lawsuits is that it was just arbitrary and capriitus 298 00:18:40,119 --> 00:18:43,760 Speaker 1: to have a deadline, change the deadline, and then change 299 00:18:43,760 --> 00:18:46,879 Speaker 1: it backward again because people had developed enough of a 300 00:18:46,960 --> 00:18:50,000 Speaker 1: reliance interest in these deadlines that that shouldn't have been 301 00:18:50,040 --> 00:18:52,000 Speaker 1: done at that point. Be I mean, if it's being 302 00:18:52,040 --> 00:18:55,480 Speaker 1: made as a sort of sub textual claim that yes, 303 00:18:55,520 --> 00:18:58,040 Speaker 1: there might be this intense that the bigger cities which 304 00:18:58,080 --> 00:19:01,760 Speaker 1: had more of these individuals don't get counted. Experts have 305 00:19:01,840 --> 00:19:05,800 Speaker 1: warned that shortcuts would lead to inaccurate census counts, missing 306 00:19:05,960 --> 00:19:10,080 Speaker 1: the poor, the young, and minority groups. Traditionally the hardest account. 307 00:19:10,520 --> 00:19:14,480 Speaker 1: Is there any evidence that that's true? Well, I think 308 00:19:14,600 --> 00:19:19,040 Speaker 1: everybody who's in general fearful and hiding from law enforcement 309 00:19:19,480 --> 00:19:22,960 Speaker 1: in general because they know that at the moment to 310 00:19:23,119 --> 00:19:27,600 Speaker 1: their advantage that they be seeing less than as opposed 311 00:19:27,640 --> 00:19:31,040 Speaker 1: to be seen more will be harder to count. And 312 00:19:31,160 --> 00:19:36,120 Speaker 1: so the complication than becomes if you're intensive to actually 313 00:19:36,240 --> 00:19:40,640 Speaker 1: count every human being in the in the United States 314 00:19:41,040 --> 00:19:44,720 Speaker 1: in order to apportion this properly, the less resources you're 315 00:19:44,760 --> 00:19:48,480 Speaker 1: putting towards that goal, you're gonna get more people who 316 00:19:48,480 --> 00:19:51,680 Speaker 1: want to be counted as less people who don't want 317 00:19:51,680 --> 00:19:55,400 Speaker 1: to be counted. And so that would have some natural 318 00:19:55,480 --> 00:20:00,399 Speaker 1: relationship to I'm documented individuals. That is the third count 319 00:20:00,640 --> 00:20:04,040 Speaker 1: of the complaints, That is done by the City of 320 00:20:04,080 --> 00:20:07,040 Speaker 1: Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and others filing 321 00:20:07,080 --> 00:20:10,680 Speaker 1: this lawsuits, they're saying it is a pretext to exclude 322 00:20:10,720 --> 00:20:16,239 Speaker 1: a documented forces from the apportionment count. But again, you 323 00:20:16,280 --> 00:20:19,919 Speaker 1: know this, this wasn't the basis so far for the 324 00:20:19,960 --> 00:20:25,760 Speaker 1: courts temporary injunctions. Of the basis was that the justification 325 00:20:25,840 --> 00:20:29,520 Speaker 1: given by the government doesn't match what they said previously, 326 00:20:30,240 --> 00:20:32,800 Speaker 1: and because there was a deadline given in the past, 327 00:20:32,840 --> 00:20:35,440 Speaker 1: they haven't given a good reason why they would change 328 00:20:35,440 --> 00:20:39,840 Speaker 1: the deadline against. So what happens if the Census Bureau 329 00:20:40,040 --> 00:20:45,520 Speaker 1: is not able to complete the census by December thirty one? Well, 330 00:20:45,600 --> 00:20:49,919 Speaker 1: I think the concern that this administration would have is 331 00:20:49,960 --> 00:20:55,000 Speaker 1: that if it ran into late January, that if the 332 00:20:55,040 --> 00:20:59,800 Speaker 1: president President drump was defeated, that Joe Biden could actually 333 00:21:00,040 --> 00:21:04,080 Speaker 1: and said the count as their belief was, this count 334 00:21:04,119 --> 00:21:09,640 Speaker 1: would be more this advantageous to Republicans, I suppose, than 335 00:21:10,320 --> 00:21:12,919 Speaker 1: the count that this president would set. That's sort of 336 00:21:12,960 --> 00:21:16,960 Speaker 1: the theory that's undergirding these lawsuits is that this would 337 00:21:16,960 --> 00:21:22,000 Speaker 1: be the only possible as some explanation that is clear 338 00:21:22,119 --> 00:21:26,800 Speaker 1: and provable. This explanation is the only explanation that that 339 00:21:26,840 --> 00:21:29,400 Speaker 1: they can surmise for why all of this is happening. 340 00:21:29,800 --> 00:21:33,600 Speaker 1: And there was a request to the Senate to extend 341 00:21:33,640 --> 00:21:38,360 Speaker 1: the deadline beyond December one, and they never took that up. Correct, 342 00:21:38,400 --> 00:21:40,200 Speaker 1: And that's one of the issues that's actually going to 343 00:21:40,280 --> 00:21:43,920 Speaker 1: be under debate right now during this period, right before 344 00:21:43,960 --> 00:21:49,320 Speaker 1: the Continuing Resolution needs to pass on September. And there 345 00:21:49,400 --> 00:21:53,080 Speaker 1: is some beliefs that there is some bipartisan consent this 346 00:21:53,320 --> 00:21:56,320 Speaker 1: here to move defenses because you know, there are states 347 00:21:56,359 --> 00:21:59,960 Speaker 1: like Texas also that are large states that want everybody 348 00:22:00,040 --> 00:22:03,359 Speaker 1: COUNTID in Texas, that are more read you know, and 349 00:22:03,480 --> 00:22:07,240 Speaker 1: say things with Florida than just states like California or 350 00:22:07,320 --> 00:22:10,120 Speaker 1: New York. So it will be interesting to see if 351 00:22:10,200 --> 00:22:13,480 Speaker 1: the Congress is part of the Continuing Resolution actually ends 352 00:22:13,520 --> 00:22:17,199 Speaker 1: up expending these deadlines but not needing these lawsuits. So 353 00:22:17,280 --> 00:22:20,080 Speaker 1: tell us more about the second aspect of these lawsuits 354 00:22:20,119 --> 00:22:23,959 Speaker 1: and where that stands right well. The second aspect is 355 00:22:24,520 --> 00:22:27,439 Speaker 1: the issue that has now been argued in oral argument 356 00:22:27,520 --> 00:22:30,400 Speaker 1: in New York and will be argued soon in California, 357 00:22:30,720 --> 00:22:34,800 Speaker 1: which is can you actually include undocumented immigrants from the census. 358 00:22:35,640 --> 00:22:39,680 Speaker 1: And so that's the issue that is being argued, and 359 00:22:39,760 --> 00:22:43,119 Speaker 1: there's all kinds of peripheral issues there about whether you 360 00:22:43,160 --> 00:22:46,160 Speaker 1: have to wait to do that until after the show 361 00:22:46,200 --> 00:22:50,399 Speaker 1: that you've been damaged by not counting people, or whether 362 00:22:50,440 --> 00:22:53,960 Speaker 1: you can do it now preemptively. But it appears as 363 00:22:53,960 --> 00:22:56,800 Speaker 1: the Second Circuit, where they have a three juch panel 364 00:22:56,840 --> 00:22:59,600 Speaker 1: with some district court and some second Circuit and that 365 00:22:59,600 --> 00:23:03,600 Speaker 1: would go directly to the Supreme Court if they actually 366 00:23:04,720 --> 00:23:09,600 Speaker 1: banned the memo that the President wrote. That panel seems 367 00:23:09,640 --> 00:23:14,120 Speaker 1: to have some skepticism of the government's arguments here, and 368 00:23:14,200 --> 00:23:18,000 Speaker 1: they seem to think that this policy is wrong to 369 00:23:18,040 --> 00:23:21,879 Speaker 1: say that you can't count undocumented individuals, and that the 370 00:23:21,960 --> 00:23:25,359 Speaker 1: timing is fine now at the moment to be able 371 00:23:25,359 --> 00:23:27,280 Speaker 1: to make this claim. You don't have to wait until 372 00:23:27,400 --> 00:23:31,280 Speaker 1: later to show that you were harmed by the accounts 373 00:23:31,320 --> 00:23:35,240 Speaker 1: that were subsequently done. And so because of that, I 374 00:23:35,640 --> 00:23:38,959 Speaker 1: can foresee that kept getting to the Supreme Court relatively quickly. 375 00:23:39,800 --> 00:23:43,160 Speaker 1: Who has the stronger argument at the Second Circuit as 376 00:23:43,160 --> 00:23:48,119 Speaker 1: to whether or not you can count undocumented immigrants. Well, 377 00:23:48,240 --> 00:23:52,199 Speaker 1: it seems that if the Second Circuit panel accepted the 378 00:23:52,359 --> 00:23:56,679 Speaker 1: argument that it would be illegal and unconstitutional not to 379 00:23:56,800 --> 00:24:01,360 Speaker 1: count undocumented immigrants from the census have to see. They 380 00:24:01,400 --> 00:24:03,919 Speaker 1: seem to be having some struggle perhaps with is this 381 00:24:04,040 --> 00:24:06,760 Speaker 1: the right time to make that argument, or do you 382 00:24:06,800 --> 00:24:09,639 Speaker 1: make it after you see the formula and after you 383 00:24:09,640 --> 00:24:12,720 Speaker 1: see the counts so that you can better debate what 384 00:24:12,960 --> 00:24:16,199 Speaker 1: was actually counted or not. But it seems like they 385 00:24:16,280 --> 00:24:19,320 Speaker 1: were convinced in that argument, although we need to see 386 00:24:19,320 --> 00:24:22,960 Speaker 1: the order to see that at the end of the day, 387 00:24:23,600 --> 00:24:27,760 Speaker 1: the the challenge could occur now and that there is 388 00:24:27,760 --> 00:24:30,679 Speaker 1: an unlimited power on the President to determine how to 389 00:24:30,720 --> 00:24:35,880 Speaker 1: apportion the districts. And so it seems likely that we're 390 00:24:35,880 --> 00:24:37,600 Speaker 1: going to be getting an order in the next week 391 00:24:37,680 --> 00:24:41,560 Speaker 1: or two that says that this memo is illegal, and 392 00:24:41,600 --> 00:24:44,480 Speaker 1: then that would be challenge to the Supreme Court. So now, 393 00:24:44,520 --> 00:24:47,840 Speaker 1: remind us the Supreme Court has already ruled on the 394 00:24:47,880 --> 00:24:51,960 Speaker 1: census once via five to four vote. Remind us what 395 00:24:52,480 --> 00:24:56,320 Speaker 1: was decided then, right, the Supreme Court at that point 396 00:24:56,760 --> 00:25:01,000 Speaker 1: invalidated the process and a five four decision by which 397 00:25:01,119 --> 00:25:05,920 Speaker 1: the Census Bureau tried to ask a citizenship question in 398 00:25:05,960 --> 00:25:09,000 Speaker 1: the census because they said that that process was arbitrary 399 00:25:09,040 --> 00:25:12,080 Speaker 1: and capricius and didn't follow the process by which you 400 00:25:12,080 --> 00:25:16,160 Speaker 1: would insert such a question in the census. They didn't say. 401 00:25:16,320 --> 00:25:20,600 Speaker 1: They didn't say one way or the other, definitively, what 402 00:25:20,840 --> 00:25:22,680 Speaker 1: is the fate of whether you could ask such a 403 00:25:22,760 --> 00:25:25,920 Speaker 1: citizenship questions? Nor did they say whether it would be 404 00:25:25,960 --> 00:25:31,120 Speaker 1: illegal or not to exclude undocumented individuals from the census. 405 00:25:31,119 --> 00:25:35,800 Speaker 1: But nevertheless, that claim appears to be heading more squarely 406 00:25:36,320 --> 00:25:40,240 Speaker 1: to a chord that appears to have for sure for 407 00:25:40,520 --> 00:25:43,120 Speaker 1: judges that seems to think that that's fine to exclude 408 00:25:43,160 --> 00:25:46,920 Speaker 1: undocumented immigrants, for the seems to think it's not fine 409 00:25:47,000 --> 00:25:49,400 Speaker 1: to exclude. And then we're gonna be left to see 410 00:25:49,400 --> 00:25:51,399 Speaker 1: what justice Roberts will be able to come up with 411 00:25:51,480 --> 00:25:53,639 Speaker 1: his two as he was the swing vote in the 412 00:25:53,680 --> 00:25:58,399 Speaker 1: prior census case to determine whether undocumented individuals can be 413 00:25:58,440 --> 00:26:00,879 Speaker 1: counted in the census. There are more than half a 414 00:26:00,920 --> 00:26:05,080 Speaker 1: dozen other lawsuits you mentioned a few that are percolating 415 00:26:05,160 --> 00:26:09,720 Speaker 1: through the system, and so could they be conflicting decisions. 416 00:26:10,680 --> 00:26:14,840 Speaker 1: They're absolutely could be conflicting decisions. But the point is, 417 00:26:14,920 --> 00:26:18,240 Speaker 1: as long as there's one chord that is issuing either 418 00:26:18,280 --> 00:26:22,760 Speaker 1: a temporary or training order or a preliminary injunction, then 419 00:26:23,040 --> 00:26:26,880 Speaker 1: and and they comment on a nationwide basis that this 420 00:26:27,040 --> 00:26:30,960 Speaker 1: means that the United States Department of Justice would have 421 00:26:31,080 --> 00:26:33,560 Speaker 1: to go to the Supreme courts to get that I'm done. 422 00:26:34,119 --> 00:26:37,800 Speaker 1: And so there's three bites of the apple that the 423 00:26:37,840 --> 00:26:40,840 Speaker 1: plaintiffs are trying. They're trying in the districts of Maryland, 424 00:26:40,880 --> 00:26:43,199 Speaker 1: they're trying in the southern districts of New York, and 425 00:26:43,280 --> 00:26:46,360 Speaker 1: they're trying in the northern districts of California. And they 426 00:26:46,359 --> 00:26:49,400 Speaker 1: only have to be right one. And if they're right one, 427 00:26:49,760 --> 00:26:52,960 Speaker 1: this will mean that that case will go to the 428 00:26:53,000 --> 00:26:57,080 Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Who are the plaintiffs in these cases? Some 429 00:26:57,240 --> 00:27:00,520 Speaker 1: are groups of our city, from our county, from our state, 430 00:27:01,200 --> 00:27:04,640 Speaker 1: and they're sort of interspersed by where these locations are. 431 00:27:05,040 --> 00:27:07,600 Speaker 1: The New York case is the state of New York 432 00:27:07,760 --> 00:27:12,920 Speaker 1: luck some localities. The the Dordan District of California case 433 00:27:12,960 --> 00:27:15,920 Speaker 1: has a lot of California based localities. Of the Maryland 434 00:27:15,960 --> 00:27:21,200 Speaker 1: case as more immigration group type places in it. Let's 435 00:27:21,240 --> 00:27:25,440 Speaker 1: say Joe Biden wins the election and the census had 436 00:27:25,480 --> 00:27:29,680 Speaker 1: been completed the information handed over by December thirty one. 437 00:27:29,920 --> 00:27:34,080 Speaker 1: Can there be litigation then to dispute the findings of 438 00:27:34,119 --> 00:27:38,800 Speaker 1: the census I mean, how would that even work out? Well, yes, technically. 439 00:27:39,000 --> 00:27:43,120 Speaker 1: So let's say let's say that the census comes out 440 00:27:43,200 --> 00:27:45,520 Speaker 1: during a time where Joe Biden as president, and he 441 00:27:45,600 --> 00:27:48,959 Speaker 1: said I don't want any of this immigration unrelated stuff 442 00:27:49,400 --> 00:27:52,639 Speaker 1: impacting the census in any way, shape or ford. You 443 00:27:52,720 --> 00:27:56,240 Speaker 1: still could have litigation where the states that don't want 444 00:27:56,240 --> 00:28:00,359 Speaker 1: I'm documented individuals counted could do and and say that 445 00:28:00,480 --> 00:28:02,719 Speaker 1: they shouldn't be counted because of a portion had been 446 00:28:02,760 --> 00:28:06,639 Speaker 1: brief that their apportunateen is being negatively affective that you 447 00:28:06,640 --> 00:28:10,920 Speaker 1: know that wasn't filed or in any other decade. But 448 00:28:11,040 --> 00:28:14,720 Speaker 1: maybe this issue is percolated to such a powerful political 449 00:28:14,760 --> 00:28:17,840 Speaker 1: issue that you might see that this time around. Thanks 450 00:28:17,840 --> 00:28:21,000 Speaker 1: for being on the Bloomberg Law Show. Leon. That's Leon Fresco, 451 00:28:21,119 --> 00:28:24,000 Speaker 1: a partner at Hollandon Knight. The stakes are high in 452 00:28:24,040 --> 00:28:27,760 Speaker 1: these cases. The census helps determine how one point five 453 00:28:27,880 --> 00:28:31,440 Speaker 1: trillion dollars in federal funding is distributed and how many 454 00:28:31,480 --> 00:28:35,680 Speaker 1: congressional seats each state gets in apportionment. As of Saturday, 455 00:28:35,720 --> 00:28:38,640 Speaker 1: more than eighty six percent of households have been counted. 456 00:28:38,920 --> 00:28:42,040 Speaker 1: More than sixty five percent of households were counted from 457 00:28:42,040 --> 00:28:47,200 Speaker 1: self responses online, by mail, or by telephone, and tent 458 00:28:47,320 --> 00:28:50,360 Speaker 1: of households were counted by census takers who went to 459 00:28:50,440 --> 00:28:54,240 Speaker 1: households that hadn't yet answered the questionnaire. And that's it 460 00:28:54,360 --> 00:28:57,200 Speaker 1: for this edition of Bloomberg Law. Remember you can always 461 00:28:57,240 --> 00:28:59,800 Speaker 1: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast. 462 00:29:00,080 --> 00:29:03,320 Speaker 1: You can find them on iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot 463 00:29:03,320 --> 00:29:07,560 Speaker 1: com slash podcast slash Law. I'm June Grasso. Thanks so 464 00:29:07,640 --> 00:29:08,400 Speaker 1: much for listening.