August, 08 2018, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jay Riestenberg, Deputy Communications Director, 202-736-5741, jriestenberg@commoncause.org
Groundswell of Opposition Tells Commerce Department to Scrap the Citizenship Question on 2020 Census
Common Cause joined more than 250,000 individuals and organizations to urge the Commerce Department to remove the citizenship question from the 2020 Census, citing the threat to census accuracy in all communities that will undermine the fair allocation of political representation, public resources, and private investment for the next decade. The organizations represent millions of people from every state and the District of Columbia, as well as diverse urban and rural communities.
WASHINGTON
Common Cause joined more than 250,000 individuals and organizations to urge the Commerce Department to remove the citizenship question from the 2020 Census, citing the threat to census accuracy in all communities that will undermine the fair allocation of political representation, public resources, and private investment for the next decade. The organizations represent millions of people from every state and the District of Columbia, as well as diverse urban and rural communities.
Census stakeholders from a broad range of sectors and geographic areas voiced their concerns about the proposed addition of a new, untested citizenship question as part of a 60-day public comment period before the Census Bureau (an agency of the Commerce Department) finalizes major 2020 Census operations and questionnaire content. Under the public comment process, the Commerce Department must consider and respond (at least in summary terms) to the submissions prior to seeking clearance from the Office of Management and Budget for the 2020 Census plan and questionnaire.
Common Cause and its network of 30 state offices organized nearly 17,000 individual comments to the Commerce Department in opposition to the citizenship question being added to the 2020 Census. Common Cause also submitted comments on behalf of the organization's 1.2 million members and activists, which you can find here.
"Everyday Americans are speaking up for an impartial and accurate Census. Adding a citizenship question will weaponize the census against communities of color, diluting their right to political representation and cutting them off from public spending," said Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause. "Experts across the political spectrum, and now over 100,000 Americans, have weighed in against the addition of the question. It is well past time for Secretary Ross to remove the citizenship question from the 2020 Census."
"This egregious citizenship question is a political effort to weaponize the census to redefine American democracy for a narrow set of people, and it must not stand" said Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference Education Fund. "The Trump administration is trying to fundamentally change what this country is, and aspires to be, by creating different classes of people. The Constitution requires the Census to count each and every person - and the inclusion of this question will sabotage that solemn duty. But it is clear that a diverse community of people and organizations from across the nation are committed to protecting and demanding a fair and accurate census so that no one is left behind."
"We're proud to see so many Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders take the initiative to voice their opinion about the extreme harm the citizenship question is likely to have on getting an accurate census count of our communities," said John C. Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC. "With so many in our community who are either children of immigrants or immigrants themselves, this might be the first time they are participating in a census. We need to be sure that a potentially toxic, untested and unnecessary question does not deter our community from being counted accurately."
"Americans across the country have made clear their unequivocal opposition to the politicization of Census 2020 through the addition of a citizenship question," said Arturo Vargas, chief executive officer of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund. "If implemented, this harmful and costly decision would have far reaching implications for Latinos and all Americans, depressing response rates and threatening the fair and equitable distribution of political representation and billions of dollars in federal funding. As policymakers at all levels -- federal, state and local -- our nation's Latino officials rely on a full and dynamic picture of who is residing in their communities in order to focus critical resources and act in the best interests of their constituents. We will continue to fight against the addition of this question in both Congress and the courts to ensure that Latino policymakers are able to do their jobs effectively and that the U.S. Census Bureau's mission of counting every single person living in this country each decade, regardless of age, citizenship, ethnicity or race, is not compromised."
"The addition of a citizenship question to the census is yet another attack on immigrants from this administration," said Jennifer Bellamy, legislative counsel at the ACLU. "Experts agree that the question's inclusion will dramatically reduce the participation of immigrant communities, stunting their growing political influence and depriving them of economic benefits. The impact of lower response rates for communities and states with large immigrant populations will be catastrophic and far-reaching, affecting education, transportation, health care, and voting power. We must stop this question from being included, and ensure that the true purpose of the census--to count all people living in the United States--is protected."
"The census is an essential tool for understanding and shaping our country's economic and social realities," said Thea Lee, president of EPI. "Adding an untested, disruptive, and controversial question, which will certainly deter key groups from participating in the decennial count, is policy malpractice. The administration should listen to the tens of thousands of policymakers, economists, sociologists, and members of the public who have weighed in, and withdraw its flawed proposal immediately."
"The addition of a citizenship question targets Black communities and other communities of color," said Rashad Robinson, president of Color of Change. "Trump and his cronies Jeff Sessions and Wilbur Ross at the Commerce Department are changing the rules with the simple goal: to make Black people, people of color and our communities invisible. If they can say we don't exist through the Census, then they can chip away at our right to vote, at fair inclusion of our communities in critical resources and make the American Dream that much harder to realize. This is a long held project of the same forces that defend white nationalists who march in American cities and chip away at school integration and voter protection -- more than ever we must stand up, push back and hold those who enable this behavior accountable."
"Donald Trump is trying to use the census to rig elections for Republicans until 2030," said Heidi Hess, co-director ofCREDO Action. "If a discriminatory citizenship question is included in the 2020 census it could result in a major undercounting of immigrant communities. It's a desperate attempt to supercharge right-wing gerrymandering and voter suppression - and the public sees right through it."
"A fair and accurate Census is crucial to equitable distribution of our nation's resources and political power for the next decade, and the last-minute, haphazard addition of a question designed to diminish participation from communities already at high risk of being undercounted must not be permitted," said Carolyn Fiddler, communications director at Daily Kos. "The government has a constitutional duty to correctly count every person living in the United States, regardless of citizenship status, and questioning respondents' citizenship will depress participation and skew counts in already-underserved populations. We call on the Department of Commerce to keep this untested, unnecessary question off of the 2020 Census."
"Thousands of MomsRising members submitted comments to the Secretary of Commerce because we recognize that a discriminatory question that drives down participation in the Census and forces an undercount of immigrants would cause grave harm," said Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, executive director and CEO of MomsRising, the online and on-the-ground organization of more than one million mothers and their families. "This is another disgraceful attack on immigrants - another example of the Trump administration using racism and xenophobia to divide us. The moms of America want discriminatory questions removed from the Census so we can get an accurate count, which in turn will support fair distribution of health, housing, education and other resources to our communities.
"It's critical that the census provide an accurate picture of every community in our country," said Marge Baker, executive vice president of People For the American Way. "Adding an untested, politically motivated question about citizenship dangerously undermines that goal. Adding this question to the census won't help anyone learn more about the makeup of our country, but it will make more people nervous about participating in the census. That may be good news for political activists who want to dilute the power of communities of color, but it's very bad news for our country as a whole and for anyone who cares about our democracy."
"Adding a citizenship question to our census threatens to erase immigrants from our country's records," said Bridgette Gomez, director of Latino leadership and engagement at Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "If you aren't accounted for, you do not exist as far as resource distribution is concerned. We know immigrants already have a very difficult time accessing health care, as lack of health insurance and fear of detention and deportation have driven communities farther and farther into the shadows under the Trump administration. At Planned Parenthood, we believe that no one's access to services should be compromised because they belong to an immigrant family or community. We strongly condemn the Trump-Pence administration's addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census. And we are committed to fighting alongside a bipartisan group of former census directors, our communities, and partners to speak against this injustice."
"Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross directed the Census Bureau to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census form for one reason only: To intimidate and frighten recent immigrants - including both citizens and noncitizens - so they don't fill out their census form. In overwhelming numbers, Americans are denouncing his not-so-disguised anti-immigrant cruelty and demanding the question be removed, so the Census can meet its constitutional obligation to deliver a true and accurate count," said Robert Weissman, president, Public Citizen.
"The American people will not tolerate the Trump Administration exploiting the census in order to carry out their racist and xenophobic policies," said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. "Donald Trump cannot decide which communities receive support, and which don't have access to clean air and water. It's reprehensible that Donald Trump would try to blatantly undermine the Constitution. But together, with our allies and the hundreds of thousands of Americans across the country that have already spoken, we will protect the integrity of the census, protect our democracy, and protect our communities and the environment."
To view this release online, click here.
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process.
(202) 833-1200LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments
"It'd be a travesty for justices to delay matters further," said one legal expert.
Apr 25, 2024
After about three hours of oral arguments Thursday on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims, legal experts and democracy defenders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule swiftly, with just over six months until the November election.
Trump—the presumptive Republican candidate to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden, despite his 88 felony charges in four ongoing criminal cases—is arguing that presidential immunity should protect him from federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Justices across the ideological spectrum didn't seem inclined to support Trump's broad immunity claims—which critics have said "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent." However, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) shared examples of what it would mean if they did.
"Trump could sell pardons, ambassadorships, and other official benefits to his wealthy donors, members of his clubs, or cronies who helped him commit other crimes," CREW warned. "Trump could sell nuclear codes and government secrets to help pay back crippling debts."
"But this isn't just about what Donald Trump could do. It's really about how total immunity for the president would threaten our democratic system of checks and balances," the group continued. "The president could order the military to assassinate activists, political opponents, members of Congress, or even Supreme Court justices, so long as he claimed it related to some official act."
After warning that a president could also order the occupation or closure of the Capitol or high court to prevent actions against him, CREW concluded that "the Supreme Court never should have taken this appeal up in the first place. They should rule quickly and shut these ludicrous claims down for good."
The organization was far from alone in demanding a quick decision from the nation's highest court.
"In the name of accountability, the court must not delay its decision," the Brennan Center for Justice said Thursday evening. "The Supreme Court's time is up. It needs to let the prosecution move forward. The court decided Bush v. Gore in three days—it should act with similar alacrity in deciding Trump v. U.S."
In Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 election, the high court issued a related stay on December 9, heard oral arguments on December 11, and issued a final decision on December 12.
On Thursday, the arguments "got away from the central question: Is a former president immune from criminal prosecution if he tried to overthrow a presidential election, using private means and the power of his office to do so?" the Brennan Center noted. "The answer is simple: No."
"It is not an 'official act' to try to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power or the Constitution, even if you conspire with other government officials to do it or use the Oval Office phone," the center said. "Trump's attorney was pushing the court to come up with a sea change in the law. That's unnecessary and a delay tactic that will hurt the pursuit of justice in this case."
In a departure from previous claims, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, "appeared to agree with Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve 'official acts' of the president," NBC Newsreported, noting questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.
Barrett summarized various allegations from the indictment and in three cases—involving dishonest election claims, false allegations of fraud, and fake electors—Sauer conceded that Trump's alleged conduct sounded private, suggesting that a more narrow case against the ex-president that excluded any potential official acts could proceed.
Due to Trump attorney's concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there's now a very clear path for DOJ's case to go forward.\n\nIt'd be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.\n\nJustice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.\u2b07\ufe0f— (@)
According to NBC:
Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School who filed a brief backing prosecutors, said Sauer's concessions highlight that Trump is "not immune for the vast majority of the conduct alleged in the indictment."
Ultimately, he said, the case will go to trial "absent some external intervention—like Trump ordering [the Justice Department] to drop the charges" after having won the election.
At the same time, Sauer's backtracking might have little consequence from an electoral perspective. Further delay in a trial, which Sauer is close to achieving, is a form of victory in itself.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that when Barrett similarly questioned Michael Dreeben, the U.S. Department of Justice lawyer arguing the case for Smith, it seemed like they "were trying to work out some compromise wherein the trial court could distinguish between official and unofficial acts, then instruct the jury not to impose criminal liability on the former."
"It was fascinating to watch Barrett nodding along as Dreeben pitched a compromise that would largely preserve Smith's January 6 prosecution but limit what the jury could hear, or at least consider," Stern added. "That, though, would take months to suss out in the trial court. More delays!"
Stern and other experts signaled that the decision likely comes down to Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three liberals seemingly supporting the prosecution of Trump and the other four conservatives suggesting it is unconstitutional.
People for the American Way president Svante Myrick said in a statement that "today's argument brought both good and bad news. It was chilling to hear Donald Trump's lawyer say that staging a military coup could be considered part of a president's official duties."
"Thankfully, the majority of the court, including conservative justices, did not seem to buy that very broad Trump argument that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution under any circumstances," Myrick added. "On the other hand, it's not clear that there is a majority on this court that will quickly reject the immunity arguments and let the case go forward in time for a trial before the election. That's a huge concern."
Trump was not at the Supreme Court on Thursday; he was at his trial in New York, where he faces 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The are two other cases: a federal one for mishandling classified material and another in Georgia for interfering with the last presidential contest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just the Beginning': 50+ Arrested for Blockading Citigroup Bank Over Climate Crimes
"Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet," said one Indigenous campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
Twenty more demonstrators were arrested Thursday, the second day of Earth Week protests targeting Citigroup's Manhattan headquarters in what organizers called "the beginning of a wave of direct actions to take place over the summer targeting big banks for creating climate chaos that is killing our communities and our planet."
Protest organizers—who include Climate Defenders, New York Communities for Change, Planet over Profit, and Stop the Money Pipeline—said 53 activists were arrested over two days of demonstrations, which included blocking the entrance to Citigroup's headquarters, to "demand that the bank stop funding fossil fuels."
Organizers said this week's demonstrations "were just the beginning" of what they're calling a "Summer of Heat" targeting big banks for their role in the climate emergency and for "polluting our land, air, and water, and threatening the health of children, families, and our planet." Citigroup is the world's second-largest fossil fuel financier.
"We're holding Citi accountable for financing dirty fossil fuels from Canada to Latin America and beyond," said Chief Na'moks of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, one of several Indigenous leaders who took part in the action. "Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet."
Jonathan Westin, executive director of Climate Defenders, asserted that "Citigroup's racist funding of oil, coal, and gas is creating climate chaos that's devastating communities of color across the country."
"We're taking action to tell Citi that we won't put up with their environmental racism for one more day," Westin continued. "Our communities have reached the boiling point. Our children have asthma, our city's sky was orange, and our air polluted because of the climate crisis caused by Citi and Wall Street."
"We're going to keep organizing and taking direct action until Citi listens to us," he vowed.
Stop the Money Pipeline co-director Alec Connon said: "To have any chance of reigning in the climate crisis, we must stop investing in fossil fuel expansion. Yet, Citibank is pumping billions of dollars into new coal, oil, and gas projects."
"We're here to make it clear: If they're going to fund the companies disrupting our climate and our lives, we're going to disrupt their business," Connon added.
Activists have repeatedly targeted Citigroup in recent years as the megabank has pumped more than $300 billion into fossil fuel investments around the world since the Paris climate agreement.
According to the protest organizers:
Citi has provided $668 million in funding to Formosa Plastics between 2001-2021, which is trying to build a $9.4 billion plastics facility in a majority Black community in the heart of Cancer Alley in Louisiana.
Citigroup is also one of the biggest funders of state-run oil and gas companies in the Amazon basin, pumping in over $40 billion between 2016-2020, and a major backer of Petroperú, which has been involved in oil spills and Indigenous rights violations.
"From wildfires, heatwaves, and floods to deadly air pollution and mass drought, Citi's fossil fuel financing is killing us," said Alice Hu of New York Communities for Change. "We've sent polite petitions and had pleading meetings with bank representatives, but Citi refuses to stop pouring billions each year into coal, oil, and gas."
"That's why we're fighting for our lives now with the best tool we have left: mass, nonviolent disruptive civil disobedience," Hu added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Outside Probe, US Reiterates as Gazans Reportedly Buried Alive in Mass Grave
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself?" asked one incredulous reporter.
Apr 25, 2024
A Biden administration spokesperson once again brushed off calls for an independent investigation into how hundreds of Palestinians found in mass graves near Gaza hospitals died when asked Thursday about new reports that many of the victims were tortured, summarily executed—and in some cases, buried alive by Israeli invaders.
During a Thursday U.S. State Department press conference in Washington, D.C., a reporter noted Gaza officials' claim that mass grave victims "including children were tortured before being killed" and that "some even showed signs of being buried alive, along with other crimes against humanity."
"What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Noting calls by Palestinian officials and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk for an independent probe into mass graves, the reporter said that "this administration repeatedly said that it asks... the Israeli government to investigate itself."
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself and provide reports that you have previously said that you actually trust?" the reporter asked State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel. "What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Patel replied: "We continue to find these reports incredibly troubling. And that's why yesterday you saw the national security adviser for this to be thoroughly investigated."
While National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on Wednesday called reports of mass grave atrocities "deeply disturbing" and said that "we want answers" from Israel, he did not call for an independent investigation.
When the reporter pressed Patel on the legitimacy of asking Israel to investigate itself, Patel said, "we believe that through a thorough investigation we can get some additional answers."
Thursday's exchange followed a similar back-and-forth on Tuesday between Patel and Said Arikat, a journalist for the Jerusalem-based
Palestinian news outlet al-Quds who asked about the mass graves.
At least 392 bodies—including numerous women and children—have been found in mass graves outside Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, where Palestinian Civil Defense and other workers have been exhuming victims for nearly a week. Officials believe there are as many as 700 bodies in three separate mass graves.
Based on more recent exhumations, local Civil Defense chief Yamen Abu Sulaiman said during a Wednesday press conference that "we believe that the occupation buried alive at least 20 people at the Nasser Medical Complex."
"There are cases of field execution of some patients while undergoing surgeries and wearing surgical gowns," he stated, adding that some victims showed signs of torture and 10 bodies had medical tubes attached to them.
Gaza Civil Defense official Mohammed Mughier told reporters that "we need forensic examination" to definitively determine the causes of death for the 20 people believed to have been buried alive.
Previous reporting on the mass graves quoted rescue workers who said they found people who were apparently executed while their hands were bound, with some victims missing heads, skin, and internal organs.
Other mass graves have been found in Gaza, most notably on the grounds of al-Shifa Hospital, where Israeli forces last month committed what the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor called "one of the largest massacres in Palestinian history."
It's also not the first time there have been reports of Israeli troops burying victims alive during the current war, in which Palestinian and international officials say Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 122,000 Gazans, including at least 11,000 people who are missing and feared dead. Israeli forces attacking Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia last December reportedly bulldozed and buried alive dozens of injured patients and displaced people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular