266 Electoral College votes out of the necessary 270
Throw Virginia: 13 in there and it's off to the races. A lot of those States aren't possible now thanks to split Legislatures, but those States are all pretty Democratic leaning and will likely have a unified Government at some point in the next decade.
I'm pretty sure that every state that's joined this far has had complete Democratic control over the governorship and state congress. If that's the level of control required, it makes some of those states a lot dicier.
Not really, just relatively infrequent. Nevada, Oregon, and Maine already have it. I wouldn't be surprised if at least half of the remaining States see that at some point in the 2020's. Especially with less bullshit maps after the 2022 redistricting. Virginia is likely to flip to unified control next election on its own.
Out of curiosity, is there anything to stop a state from unjoining the compact, other than inertia?
It's an act of legislation so presumably another piece of legislation could undo it.
Yeah, there were several States that voted to ratify the ERA in the 70's and then voted to not ratify the ERA a year or two later. It didn't matter since it never hit the 3/4ths, but I can't see why they couldn't rescind if they wanted to for some reason.
For one, there's actually nothing in the constitution saying you can un-ratify an amendment. So it would end up at SCOTUS to decide.
266 Electoral College votes out of the necessary 270
Throw Virginia: 13 in there and it's off to the races. A lot of those States aren't possible now thanks to split Legislatures, but those States are all pretty Democratic leaning and will likely have a unified Government at some point in the next decade.
I'm pretty sure that every state that's joined this far has had complete Democratic control over the governorship and state congress. If that's the level of control required, it makes some of those states a lot dicier.
Not really, just relatively infrequent. Nevada, Oregon, and Maine already have it. I wouldn't be surprised if at least half of the remaining States see that at some point in the 2020's. Especially with less bullshit maps after the 2022 redistricting. Virginia is likely to flip to unified control next election on its own.
Out of curiosity, is there anything to stop a state from unjoining the compact, other than inertia?
It's an act of legislation so presumably another piece of legislation could undo it.
Yeah, there were several States that voted to ratify the ERA in the 70's and then voted to not ratify the ERA a year or two later. It didn't matter since it never hit the 3/4ths, but I can't see why they couldn't rescind if they wanted to for some reason.
For one, there's actually nothing in the constitution saying you can un-ratify an amendment. So it would end up at SCOTUS to decide.
Interstate Compact isn't an Amendment, just a Compact governed by it's own enabling legislation.
Yea, the Compact idea is predicated on the idea that states get to decide how they elect their own electors. Going backies is just as valid as going forward on the compact.
It would be a real crash course test in which other states wrote their bills to trigger once and change law versus them doing state checks when it comes times to apportion electors.
NPVC could be repealed, since it's not an amendment. It would probably not be an easy lift for the GOP because they need to probably gain control of all branches of a government that was democratic enough to allow for it to pass in the first place. So removing it could end up being political suicide. Also the whole issue where it's a gamble. Either their guy wins the popular vote thus, rendering the repeal moot or gets curbed stomped so bad that it wouldn't have matter. So their is real potential for this to blow up in their faces really badly and as shortsighted as modern republicans are, there might be enough that do the calculus and conclude that sticking it to the liberals just isn't worth it. At which point the best shot at repeal is probably waiting for the state to become redder and have more of the base warm up to the idea of the shitty EC being a good concept, while also hoping the democrats don't get new states to join the compact or even some to rejoin. Plus, if they aren't being lazy, even if the NPVC does go into the effect, the democratic party should really be looking into an amendment to kill the EC. Thus avoiding having to keep fighting this fight.
Since there were lingering questions in the case of Common Cause v North Carolina and the trove of documents that was disclosed about a month ago, I've been watching for any related news. With a few articles written this week, I'm going to follow up.
The best I found was Slate's coverage. I know not everyone likes them but it's the most comprehensive coverage of the situation I was able to find. Long story, short: Those previous articles where very light on details. The daughter of the GOP strategist was given the hardware by her mother for reasons. Daughter realized what she had and tried to turn it over to Common Cause no questions asked. However, Common Cause decided to follow the rules, issued their subpoena for the documents, and filed their acquisition with the court. At the time, and this was in February, opposing council didn't object. As far as anyone can tell, no one on the North Carolina team even paid attention to this entry on the docket. Fast forward to last month when the lead lawyer started a legal shitfit. In typical GOP fashion, opposing council has said everything from the daughter didn't have legal possession to the documents to her mother is in a mental institution to outright lies in order to get the document struck from the record. The judge has been having none of that, again and again pointing to the fact that they should have filed any objections to their inclusion back in February.
The best part? Aside from how this directly impacts the Trump's Administrations efforts on the upcoming census, since it was Hofeller's memos that were directly lifted from to justify the inclusion of the citizenship question? We've not yet seen the full extent of the documents. These are just the highlights to what was titled "Project: REDMAP". There's supposedly more to come!
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
+26
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Does the Popular Vote Compact have rules as to when it goes into effect, in terms of how long before election day states can trigger or reverse out of the compact? We don’t want a situation where the Electoral College suddenly becoming obsolete, or suddenly becoming very much back in play, is an October surprise.
0
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
Does the Popular Vote Compact have rules as to when it goes into effect, in terms of how long before election day states can trigger or reverse out of the compact? We don’t want a situation where the Electoral College suddenly becoming obsolete, or suddenly becoming very much back in play, is an October surprise.
I mean as we've seen with a lot of things, there aren't a lot of things a body can legislate to bind a future legislature. I don't see how you could write a law that would prevent a future from convening an emergency session on election day to repeal it.
Granted, that same state could just also write a law to assign the electors to a given candidate regardless of the vote total so this is maybe not that big a concern given that hasn't happened yet.
Since there were lingering questions in the case of Common Cause v North Carolina and the trove of documents that was disclosed about a month ago, I've been watching for any related news. With a few articles written this week, I'm going to follow up.
The best I found was Slate's coverage. I know not everyone likes them but it's the most comprehensive coverage of the situation I was able to find. Long story, short: Those previous articles where very light on details. The daughter of the GOP strategist was given the hardware by her mother for reasons. Daughter realized what she had and tried to turn it over to Common Cause no questions asked. However, Common Cause decided to follow the rules, issued their subpoena for the documents, and filed their acquisition with the court. At the time, and this was in February, opposing council didn't object. As far as anyone can tell, no one on the North Carolina team even paid attention to this entry on the docket. Fast forward to last month when the lead lawyer started a legal shitfit. In typical GOP fashion, opposing council has said everything from the daughter didn't have legal possession to the documents to her mother is in a mental institution to outright lies in order to get the document struck from the record. The judge has been having none of that, again and again pointing to the fact that they should have filed any objections to their inclusion back in February.
The best part? Aside from how this directly impacts the Trump's Administrations efforts on the upcoming census, since it was Hofeller's memos that were directly lifted from to justify the inclusion of the citizenship question? We've not yet seen the full extent of the documents. These are just the highlights to what was titled "Project: REDMAP". There's supposedly more to come!
Apparently, the guy had his fingers in nearly every gerrymandering operation across the US. And now Common Cause has all his files, and because they made sure to do everything by the book, the GOP has pretty much no legal recourse.
Hilariously, one thing they've been repeatedly finding in the docs is his instructions on maintaining OPSEC - which he wound up undermining by being a single point of failure.
Will that matter if SCOTUS has already heard oral arguments, though? Are they under any obligation to consider or comment on evidence exposed after the fact?
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Will that matter if SCOTUS has already heard oral arguments, though? Are they under any obligation to consider or comment on evidence exposed after the fact?
With five Republican justices on the bench deliberating over an issue that will advantage Republicans for another decade?
Probably depends on how Roberts gauges things. Shitbird is very partisan, but doesn't want to fuck his agenda hardcore. If he feels being like "nah, this won't change our opinion. The GOP was totally wasn't trying to fuck people out of the vote because those people don't often vote for republicans, despite information coming out proving that was very idea," might be something doesn't go over well with the public and endanger republicans ability to maintain power. Then he will come out against the Trump administration. If he thinks they can get away with this BS, then he'll side with his fellow shitbirds in SCOTUS.
Honestly, democrats really should be pushing loudly for a campaign encouraging people to leave the citizenship question blank. If they can get millions of people onboard with leaving that question blank, gonna very hard for the Nazi Trump administration to use it to round up people and maybe people will be less scared about filling out the census, if they can count on honest people to leave the quest blank, along with them.
John Roberts' life's work is preserving the electoral power of white people. It's insane to think he'd do anything else.
Right now, the "best" that I'm willing to hope for is a ruling that's basically, "Based on what evidence we had at the start it's ok, but if something new just so happen to have shown up since then you can totally bring the case again, even if it's effectively impossible for you to bring it before us again in time to remove the question from the census."
Is there any legal requirement to answer the question truthfully? Is this a lying to the FBI thing?
Lying to the FBI is absolutely a thing. It's sometimes used for petty shit ("We can't prove you robbed that bank but we can prove you lied about where you got the money so you're going to jail anyway lol"), but sometimes it's the token conviction in a plea deal that makes more serious charges go away (see: Flynn).
Is there any legal requirement to answer the question truthfully? Is this a lying to the FBI thing?
Lying to the FBI is absolutely a thing. It's sometimes used for petty shit ("We can't prove you robbed that bank but we can prove you lied about where you got the money so you're going to jail anyway lol"), but sometimes it's the token conviction in a plea deal that makes more serious charges go away (see: Flynn).
I assume that the reason for that is that while it's generally a lesser charge, it isn't mutually exclusive with getting charged for the actual crime so it isn't double jeopardy if the government later decides you've violated the plea deal and wants to charge you.
Is there any legal requirement to answer the question truthfully? Is this a lying to the FBI thing?
I was a leader of the crew that counted a suburb of Madison, Wi in the 2010 census. There is no legal requirement to actually answer the questions, or to be truthful in answering them. If the household can't be contacted the census worker is instructed to contact neighbors to find out what they know, and if no neighbor can be found then it was my job to essentially stake out the house and find something that could be put down. If the household refused to answer a question then it was supposed to be left blank, but if a household refused to answer all of the questions then the whole thing would essentially be a guess by the census worker. Like anything, this will come down to the quality of the people in the field conducting the surveys.
Edit: All records are kept anonymized for 75 years, and the census bureau takes that part very very seriously. This is not a way to find who is illegal or anything, but the results of that question could be used to do some heinous shit.
Is there any legal requirement to answer the question truthfully? Is this a lying to the FBI thing?
I was a leader of the crew that counted a suburb of Madison, Wi in the 2010 census. There is no legal requirement to actually answer the questions, or to be truthful in answering them. If the household can't be contacted the census worker is instructed to contact neighbors to find out what they know, and if no neighbor can be found then it was my job to essentially stake out the house and find something that could be put down.
So basically the old racist retiree up the street gets to posit the immigration status of all the brown people who didn't answer the door.
I don't trust this administration to not find some way to get their fucking hands on that information. Also given that they ask neighbors, some of whom might be absolute racists. I'd say it's better than no one fills out the citizenship question if it doesn't get torched. Removes the case where the shithead racist can claim that their minority neighbor is here illegally because it sounds like they only check if nothing gets filled out. Then when, and if this shitty admin finds some way to get ahold of that information for ICE, it'll be worthless if millions of citizens leave that question blank.
I don't trust this administration to not find some way to get their fucking hands on that information. Also given that they ask neighbors, some of whom might be absolute racists. I'd say it's better than no one fills out the citizenship question if it doesn't get torched. Removes the case where the shithead racist can claim that their minority neighbor is here illegally because it sounds like they only check if nothing gets filled out. Then when, and if this shitty admin finds some way to get ahold of that information for ICE, it'll be worthless if millions of citizens leave that question blank.
I'm not sure they want the information, per se, I believe they want them to either not be counted for redistricting, or just to know where they are if they do. Even if the question doesn't get on there, I'm more or less expecting to hear about dark money leafleting neighborhoods with disinformation about it to further the former.
Like, "Failure to answer the citizenship question truthfully is a crime! Failure to complete a census form is not."
Imply that leaving the [non-existent] citizenship question blank isn't an option [technically true!], emphasize that lying will get you deported, and suggest that the best thing for non-citizens to do is to volountarily skip being counted.
This whole case seems designed to bring the issue of whether the GOP has stacked the federal court system enough to be effectively above the law to a head. Like, we just straight up have a ton of information now showing the majority of the dirty tricks the GOP has been up to with rigging elections.
I mean honestly if we had an honest SCOTUS they'd have to rehear the North Carolina case with all this new damning info. But they'd probably rule that the dead mans files were obtained illegally and thus all the revelations don't matter.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I mean honestly if we had an honest SCOTUS they'd have to rehear the North Carolina case with all this new damning info. But they'd probably rule that the dead mans files were obtained illegally and thus all the revelations don't matter.
Based on the daughter's quotes, that would result in copies of all the files mysteriously showing up in the mailboxes of reporters across the country the next day (assuming they aren't already there with a "DO NOT OPEN UNTIL SCOTUS FUCKS THIS UP" sticker on the package.)
Personally I think this all genuinely makes more likely that we get a ruling that's against North Carolina... though only because it gives an out where the conservative justices can say it's only wrong when someone finds a file literally named "How to fuck over Libitards in North Carolina."
Yeah, if I were the daughter, I'd drop all the info out in the public and tell her daddy's shitty friends to go eat shit.
I think this all moves up the likelihood that Roberts helps get the citizenship question and NC shit struck down. Not because he cares about doing the right thing, but as a calculated self-serving goal.
The question with a number of cases. Isn't "how quickly Roberts will sign off on a shitty thing to rig the system in his side's favor?" The question is "does he feel that they can get away with handing out favorable rulings, upholding the GOP's bullshit?" Roberts wants to maintain an illusion that his Court is credible, not just for his ego but because he does get you can prompt a backlash that will wash his precious shitty legacy away. The GOP is currently maintaining power in a number of places because they've rigged the system and have suckered a number of people into not caring.
I actually need to look into the Virginia stuff because the new state level districts are before the court, but my voter registrar just sent voting cards for the new drawn districts. Given that Chesapeake has a pretty shit Mayor and that it trends red, I'm wondering if there is BS afoot and the goal is to sow confusion or if there was some caveat missed by everyone reporting on this, that means these districts are going into effect this fall.
I mean honestly if we had an honest SCOTUS they'd have to rehear the North Carolina case with all this new damning info. But they'd probably rule that the dead mans files were obtained illegally and thus all the revelations don't matter.
He's dead so if they did rule this they'd be overturning a ton of precedent that a person's rights generally, with limited exceptions, cease after death.
I mean honestly if we had an honest SCOTUS they'd have to rehear the North Carolina case with all this new damning info. But they'd probably rule that the dead mans files were obtained illegally and thus all the revelations don't matter.
He's dead so if they did rule this they'd be overturning a ton of precedent that a person's rights generally, with limited exceptions, cease after death.
So basically we can expect a "narrow" ruling that attempts to limit it to this case only.
I don't trust this administration to not find some way to get their fucking hands on that information. Also given that they ask neighbors, some of whom might be absolute racists. I'd say it's better than no one fills out the citizenship question if it doesn't get torched. Removes the case where the shithead racist can claim that their minority neighbor is here illegally because it sounds like they only check if nothing gets filled out. Then when, and if this shitty admin finds some way to get ahold of that information for ICE, it'll be worthless if millions of citizens leave that question blank.
I'm not sure they want the information, per se, I believe they want them to either not be counted for redistricting, or just to know where they are if they do. Even if the question doesn't get on there, I'm more or less expecting to hear about dark money leafleting neighborhoods with disinformation about it to further the former.
Like, "Failure to answer the citizenship question truthfully is a crime! Failure to complete a census form is not."
Imply that leaving the [non-existent] citizenship question blank isn't an option [technically true!], emphasize that lying will get you deported, and suggest that the best thing for non-citizens to do is to volountarily skip being counted.
My understanding is that the main goal is to scare Latinos into not answering the census questions at all. In that case, it doesn't matter what the government can or can't do with the data. It only matters what the responders THINK the government can do. And if the responders think the government is going to use that data to track down Hispanic people so they can harass and deport them, illegal or otherwise - and I can't imagine how they might possibly get that impression - they'll just opt out of the census entirely.
And suddenly, oh hey, look, there aren't as many people in highly Democratic or Latino regions as we thought! Better redistrict and cut funding!
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Supreme Court hands Democrats a win in Virginia racial gerrymander case
Washington (CNN) — In a victory for Democrats in Virginia, the Supreme Court held Monday that the Republican-led Virginia House of Delegates did not have the legal right to challenge a lower court opinion that struck several district maps they had drawn as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
This means court-ordered maps that favored Democrats will continue to be used.
The decision will have an immediate impact on Virginia's fall legislative elections at a crucial time. The state, once reliably Republican, has slowly drifted left. Republicans have not won a statewide race since 2009, but they have held on to both the Senate and House by slim margins. This fall, every state legislative seat is up for re-election and the GOP holds only a two-seat advantage in both chambers.
Had the court ruled in favor of the Republican challenge, it would've greatly improved their chances of holding on to the House of Delegates. Twenty-six House districts were re-aligned by an outside expert after a lower court ruled 11 districts unconstitutional.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion for a 5-4 court, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch.
Because the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge on standing grounds, justices did not rule if the maps constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Weird set of justices on that one. Wonder what Breyer was thinking.
Supreme Court hands Democrats a win in Virginia racial gerrymander case
Washington (CNN) — In a victory for Democrats in Virginia, the Supreme Court held Monday that the Republican-led Virginia House of Delegates did not have the legal right to challenge a lower court opinion that struck several district maps they had drawn as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
This means court-ordered maps that favored Democrats will continue to be used.
The decision will have an immediate impact on Virginia's fall legislative elections at a crucial time. The state, once reliably Republican, has slowly drifted left. Republicans have not won a statewide race since 2009, but they have held on to both the Senate and House by slim margins. This fall, every state legislative seat is up for re-election and the GOP holds only a two-seat advantage in both chambers.
Had the court ruled in favor of the Republican challenge, it would've greatly improved their chances of holding on to the House of Delegates. Twenty-six House districts were re-aligned by an outside expert after a lower court ruled 11 districts unconstitutional.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion for a 5-4 court, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch.
Because the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge on standing grounds, justices did not rule if the maps constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Weird set of justices on that one. Wonder what Breyer was thinking.
It wasn't about the merits of the case at all, it was about standing. The Virginia Legislature didn't have standing to oppose the maps which is kinda weird in the end of it.
My guess is Breyer was more inclined to try and rule it an unconstitutional racial gerrymander (which it blatantly was). I don't recall exactly, but I think Thomas looks down on gerrymandering in general? Gorsuch I have no idea, maybe he just wanted to avoid having the court set a nationwide binding precedent? Maybe he legitimately didn't think the case had standing? I really don't have a good feel for him yet.
My guess is Breyer was more inclined to try and rule it an unconstitutional racial gerrymander (which it blatantly was). I don't recall exactly, but I think Thomas looks down on gerrymandering in general? Gorsuch I have no idea, maybe he just wanted to avoid having the court set a nationwide binding precedent? Maybe he legitimately didn't think the case had standing? I really don't have a good feel for him yet.
Yeah, they decided the case on technicality - Virginia law says the state AG is the sole representative of the state in civil cases. So there was an out to avoid setting precedent and a slim majority took it. The 4 against probably do not agree on what they would have done otherwise.
My guess is Breyer was more inclined to try and rule it an unconstitutional racial gerrymander (which it blatantly was). I don't recall exactly, but I think Thomas looks down on gerrymandering in general? Gorsuch I have no idea, maybe he just wanted to avoid having the court set a nationwide binding precedent? Maybe he legitimately didn't think the case had standing? I really don't have a good feel for him yet.
Thomas I believe is of the opinion that it isn't the court's place to decide gerrymandering cases in the first place, regardless of whether the parties have standing or not (beyond racial gerrymandering that violates the VRA... I think.) That's why he went with the majority.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion for a 5-4 court, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch.
Because the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge on standing grounds, justices did not rule if the maps constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Weird set of justices on that one. Wonder what Breyer was thinking.
There is probably a bit of "I legitimately think that this is the right answer" and probably some "I want to rule on the other answer... but don't realize who i would have on my side on the other answer"
There might also be some politicking in that if this is a 5-4 decision its easier to reverse and getting a "bi-partisan" 5-4 makes it even easier so if in the future either side thinks they have a better answer to the main question they can go back and do it slightly easier.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The SCOTUS just ruled in a 5-4 party line decision that Federal Courts have no say on political partisan gerrymandering.
Posts
For one, there's actually nothing in the constitution saying you can un-ratify an amendment. So it would end up at SCOTUS to decide.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Interstate Compact isn't an Amendment, just a Compact governed by it's own enabling legislation.
It would be a real crash course test in which other states wrote their bills to trigger once and change law versus them doing state checks when it comes times to apportion electors.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
The best I found was Slate's coverage. I know not everyone likes them but it's the most comprehensive coverage of the situation I was able to find. Long story, short: Those previous articles where very light on details. The daughter of the GOP strategist was given the hardware by her mother for reasons. Daughter realized what she had and tried to turn it over to Common Cause no questions asked. However, Common Cause decided to follow the rules, issued their subpoena for the documents, and filed their acquisition with the court. At the time, and this was in February, opposing council didn't object. As far as anyone can tell, no one on the North Carolina team even paid attention to this entry on the docket. Fast forward to last month when the lead lawyer started a legal shitfit. In typical GOP fashion, opposing council has said everything from the daughter didn't have legal possession to the documents to her mother is in a mental institution to outright lies in order to get the document struck from the record. The judge has been having none of that, again and again pointing to the fact that they should have filed any objections to their inclusion back in February.
The best part? Aside from how this directly impacts the Trump's Administrations efforts on the upcoming census, since it was Hofeller's memos that were directly lifted from to justify the inclusion of the citizenship question? We've not yet seen the full extent of the documents. These are just the highlights to what was titled "Project: REDMAP". There's supposedly more to come!
I mean as we've seen with a lot of things, there aren't a lot of things a body can legislate to bind a future legislature. I don't see how you could write a law that would prevent a future from convening an emergency session on election day to repeal it.
Granted, that same state could just also write a law to assign the electors to a given candidate regardless of the vote total so this is maybe not that big a concern given that hasn't happened yet.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Apparently, the guy had his fingers in nearly every gerrymandering operation across the US. And now Common Cause has all his files, and because they made sure to do everything by the book, the GOP has pretty much no legal recourse.
Hilariously, one thing they've been repeatedly finding in the docs is his instructions on maintaining OPSEC - which he wound up undermining by being a single point of failure.
With five Republican justices on the bench deliberating over an issue that will advantage Republicans for another decade?
No.
Honestly, democrats really should be pushing loudly for a campaign encouraging people to leave the citizenship question blank. If they can get millions of people onboard with leaving that question blank, gonna very hard for the Nazi Trump administration to use it to round up people and maybe people will be less scared about filling out the census, if they can count on honest people to leave the quest blank, along with them.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Right now, the "best" that I'm willing to hope for is a ruling that's basically, "Based on what evidence we had at the start it's ok, but if something new just so happen to have shown up since then you can totally bring the case again, even if it's effectively impossible for you to bring it before us again in time to remove the question from the census."
Lying to the FBI is absolutely a thing. It's sometimes used for petty shit ("We can't prove you robbed that bank but we can prove you lied about where you got the money so you're going to jail anyway lol"), but sometimes it's the token conviction in a plea deal that makes more serious charges go away (see: Flynn).
I assume that the reason for that is that while it's generally a lesser charge, it isn't mutually exclusive with getting charged for the actual crime so it isn't double jeopardy if the government later decides you've violated the plea deal and wants to charge you.
I was a leader of the crew that counted a suburb of Madison, Wi in the 2010 census. There is no legal requirement to actually answer the questions, or to be truthful in answering them. If the household can't be contacted the census worker is instructed to contact neighbors to find out what they know, and if no neighbor can be found then it was my job to essentially stake out the house and find something that could be put down. If the household refused to answer a question then it was supposed to be left blank, but if a household refused to answer all of the questions then the whole thing would essentially be a guess by the census worker. Like anything, this will come down to the quality of the people in the field conducting the surveys.
Edit: All records are kept anonymized for 75 years, and the census bureau takes that part very very seriously. This is not a way to find who is illegal or anything, but the results of that question could be used to do some heinous shit.
So basically the old racist retiree up the street gets to posit the immigration status of all the brown people who didn't answer the door.
Super.
Super duper.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I'm not sure they want the information, per se, I believe they want them to either not be counted for redistricting, or just to know where they are if they do. Even if the question doesn't get on there, I'm more or less expecting to hear about dark money leafleting neighborhoods with disinformation about it to further the former.
Like, "Failure to answer the citizenship question truthfully is a crime! Failure to complete a census form is not."
Imply that leaving the [non-existent] citizenship question blank isn't an option [technically true!], emphasize that lying will get you deported, and suggest that the best thing for non-citizens to do is to volountarily skip being counted.
So that guys files are a treasure trove of dirty shit. The GOP lied in federal court it appears.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
Based on the daughter's quotes, that would result in copies of all the files mysteriously showing up in the mailboxes of reporters across the country the next day (assuming they aren't already there with a "DO NOT OPEN UNTIL SCOTUS FUCKS THIS UP" sticker on the package.)
Personally I think this all genuinely makes more likely that we get a ruling that's against North Carolina... though only because it gives an out where the conservative justices can say it's only wrong when someone finds a file literally named "How to fuck over Libitards in North Carolina."
I think this all moves up the likelihood that Roberts helps get the citizenship question and NC shit struck down. Not because he cares about doing the right thing, but as a calculated self-serving goal.
The question with a number of cases. Isn't "how quickly Roberts will sign off on a shitty thing to rig the system in his side's favor?" The question is "does he feel that they can get away with handing out favorable rulings, upholding the GOP's bullshit?" Roberts wants to maintain an illusion that his Court is credible, not just for his ego but because he does get you can prompt a backlash that will wash his precious shitty legacy away. The GOP is currently maintaining power in a number of places because they've rigged the system and have suckered a number of people into not caring.
I actually need to look into the Virginia stuff because the new state level districts are before the court, but my voter registrar just sent voting cards for the new drawn districts. Given that Chesapeake has a pretty shit Mayor and that it trends red, I'm wondering if there is BS afoot and the goal is to sow confusion or if there was some caveat missed by everyone reporting on this, that means these districts are going into effect this fall.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
He's dead so if they did rule this they'd be overturning a ton of precedent that a person's rights generally, with limited exceptions, cease after death.
So basically we can expect a "narrow" ruling that attempts to limit it to this case only.
My understanding is that the main goal is to scare Latinos into not answering the census questions at all. In that case, it doesn't matter what the government can or can't do with the data. It only matters what the responders THINK the government can do. And if the responders think the government is going to use that data to track down Hispanic people so they can harass and deport them, illegal or otherwise - and I can't imagine how they might possibly get that impression - they'll just opt out of the census entirely.
And suddenly, oh hey, look, there aren't as many people in highly Democratic or Latino regions as we thought! Better redistrict and cut funding!
Weird set of justices on that one. Wonder what Breyer was thinking.
It wasn't about the merits of the case at all, it was about standing. The Virginia Legislature didn't have standing to oppose the maps which is kinda weird in the end of it.
Yeah, they decided the case on technicality - Virginia law says the state AG is the sole representative of the state in civil cases. So there was an out to avoid setting precedent and a slim majority took it. The 4 against probably do not agree on what they would have done otherwise.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
You make a motion to the judge.
Thomas I believe is of the opinion that it isn't the court's place to decide gerrymandering cases in the first place, regardless of whether the parties have standing or not (beyond racial gerrymandering that violates the VRA... I think.) That's why he went with the majority.
There is probably a bit of "I legitimately think that this is the right answer" and probably some "I want to rule on the other answer... but don't realize who i would have on my side on the other answer"
There might also be some politicking in that if this is a 5-4 decision its easier to reverse and getting a "bi-partisan" 5-4 makes it even easier so if in the future either side thinks they have a better answer to the main question they can go back and do it slightly easier.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/06/27/supreme-court-says-federal-courts-dont-have-a-role-in-deciding-partisan-gerrymandering-claims/