FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 01/17/2012 3:20:26 PM PST by jazusamo
Complete title: Judicial Watch Files Amicus Curiae Brief with Supreme Court Challenging U.S. Census Policy of Counting Illegal Aliens When Apportioning Seats in Congress
Judicial Watch Brief Supports Lawsuit Filed by State of Louisiana which Lost a Seat in the House of Representatives due to Census Bureau’s Unlawful Policy
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the State of Louisiana challenging a current federal policy in which “unlawfully present aliens” were counted in the 2010 Census ( Louisiana v. Bryson).
The government used these census numbers to reapportion seats in the House of Representatives and, as a result, the State of Louisiana lost a House seat to which it was entitled. Louisiana is asking that the Supreme Court order the federal government to recalculate the 2010 apportionment of House seats based upon legal residents as the U.S. Constitution requires.
Judicial Watch’s brief was filed on January 13, 2012, in partnership with the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) in a lawsuit filed by the State of Louisiana against John Bryson, U.S. Secretary of Commerce; Robert Groves, Director of the U.S. Census Bureau; and Karen Lehman Hass, Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. According to the brief:
Amici are concerned about the failure to enforce the nation’s immigration laws and the corrosive effect of this failure on our institutions and the rule of law. Among the problems caused by this failure is a redistribution of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives to States with large populations of unlawfully present aliens.
Amici respectfully submit that neither Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment, or any other provision of the Constitution authorize or permit the inclusion of unlawfully present aliens in the apportionment process. As a result, this case raises issues critical not just to Louisiana, but to every State, every American citizen, and our federal system of government.
Judicial Watch argues that due to this Census Bureau policy at least five states will lose House seats to which they are entitled. For example, based upon the Census Bureau’s calculation, Louisiana is being allocated only six House seats, as opposed to the seven that it would have been apportioned, were it not for the inclusion of illegal aliens and “non-immigrant foreign nationals,” encompassing holders of student visas and guest workers. The brief also notes that the “apportionment, in turn, determines the apportionment of electors in the Electoral College for the next three presidential elections.”
It is the contention of the State of Louisiana, Judicial Watch and AEF that “the policy of counting unlawfully present aliens in the nation’s decennial census is unconstitutional and undermines both our federal system of government and our democratic institutions,” and is the “direct result of the failure to enforce our nation’s immigration laws.”
“The U.S. Census Bureau’s policy of counting illegal aliens is unconstitutional and it distorts the democratic process,” said Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch. “Moreover, the Obama administration’s hostility to enforcing illegal immigration laws will only make this problem worse as greater numbers of illegal aliens flood into the country. Judicial Watch is pleased to join with the Allied Educational Foundation to file this amicus curiae brief in support of the State of Louisiana and the rule of law. We hope the Supreme Court takes up this historic case and vindicates the right of American citizens to have full representation in Washington.”
The issue is of debate because article II of the 14th Amendment modified Article 1 of the constitution. The first paragraph lent confusion, and sounds like it covers a different subject than the wordy second paragraph.
“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.”
This leads to the idea that “warm bodies”, not just citizens, should be represented.
Importantly, the second paragraph basically said that if a state chose to disenfranchise people, they could do so, but they would lose representation.
“But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”
But this doesn’t clarify things much.
The SCOTUS will have to work hard to figure this one out.
I absolutely agree with this suit even though Texas, where I live, would probably lose seats. The founders of this nation would be aghast at the thought of illegals being counted in the census.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
And those districts are for sure Democratic ones....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.