

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Derrick Robinson, Director of Communications,
Drobinson@lawyerscommittee.org, (202) 662-8317
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Public Counsel, along with law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips will make opening statements today in a federal trial regarding a lawsuit that challenges the late addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census by the United States Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the City of San Jose and the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, and trial is being held together with a similar claim brought by the State of California. The case will be heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: "Secretary Ross's decision to add the citizenship question was based on a flawed process that was exacerbated by discriminatory motivations that were concealed from the public until this litigation. Ross compelled his staff to concoct a cover story to try to legitimize this misbegotten decision, and overruled his scientific staff to achieve his goal. Through this litigation, we are fighting to preserve the integrity of the 2020 Census to help ensure a fair and accurate count of all people as required under the constitution."
This lawsuit was filed on April 17, 2018, immediately after Department of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced that the 2020 decennial census will include a question asking the citizenship status of every respondent. The suit claims that the addition of the citizenship question will depress participation rates among immigrant communities and communities of color, resulting in a significant undercount. The lawsuit claims that the addition of the citizenship question was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), and challenges the question's constitutionality under the Enumeration Clause and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
At trial, the lawsuit's APA claim will focus on the scheme employed by Secretary Ross to get the citizenship question added to the 2020 Census. According to Census Bureau documents, Secretary Ross decided to add the citizenship question without justification, then subsequently pushed the Department of Justice to formally request the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 Census. Additionally, Secretary Ross made his initial decision to add the question with full knowledge that it would impair the quality of Census data and that the addition of the question violated express legal requirements forbidding any new topics to be added to the Census after March 2017.
The lawsuit's Enumeration Clause and Fourteenth Amendment claims are based on evidence that the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census will depress response rates among Black, Latinx, and immigrant communities. Areas such as San Jose, and other areas with large immigrant populations, will be directly affected because the Census count is used as the basis to distribute more than $675 billion annually in federal funding, as well as political representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College.
Below are statements from:
Sam Liccardo, Mayor of San Jose, CA: "In San Jose, everyone counts. Our values - and values held dear by millions of Americans - appear threatened by the Trump Administration's political motives. Adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census will stoke fears and depress participation in diverse cities like San Jose, threatening hundreds of millions in funding for health, education, and other critical services upon which our entire community depends."
John Libby, Partner at Manatt Phelps & Phillips: "Manatt Phelps & Phillips is pleased to co-counsel with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in the trial of this important case on behalf of our clients the City of San Jose and the Black Alliance for Just Immigration. This case challenges the arbitrary and capricious decision by Commerce Secretary Ross to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. We expect the evidence at trial to show - including evidence from the Census Bureau's own analysis - that the addition of this question will depress the count of Hispanic and immigrant communities, will affect federal funding to the City of San Jose, and will spread fear among the immigrant community served by BAJI."
Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel: "This trial will tell the real story behind the Trump Administration's conspiracy to corrupt the Census for political gain. The Census is what counts for our democracy and this trial is about keeping those counts honest. We will prove that the Administration treated the Census as if it were a numbers game."
Opal Tometi, Executive Director of BAJI: "As we inch closer to the 2020 Census, the Trump Administration is pulling out all stops in their attempt to suppress the participation of people of color, specifically black immigrants. We are a critical part of the American fabric and we will not allow this administration's lies and harmful tactics to deter us from participation. No matter what, we must stand up and we must be counted."
Trial in this matter is expected to conclude on Tuesday, January 15, 2019.
To view the April 17 complaint, click here.
About the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, was formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination. Now in its 55th year, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is continuing its quest to "Move America Toward Justice." The principal mission of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is to secure, through the rule of law, equal justice for all, particularly in the areas of criminal justice, fair housing and community development, economic justice, educational opportunities, and voting rights. Learn more at Lawyerscommittee.org.
The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar's leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity - work that continues to be vital today.
(202) 662-8600"Colorado sent a clear message tonight: No child should ever have to learn on an empty stomach," said the state Democratic Party.
Colorado voters on Tuesday handily approved a pair of ballot measures to fully fund free meals for all K-12 public school students, give raises or stipends to scholastic cafeteria workers, and enact grants for schools to buy fresh foods from local farmers.
According to unofficial results published Wednesday morning by the Colorado Secretary of State's office, Proposition LL overwhelmingly passed 64.66% to 35.34%. The proposal allows the state to keep and spend $12.4 million in tax revenue, including interest, already collected under Proposition FF to fund the Healthy School Meals for All Program, a 2022 voter-approved initiative to provide free breakfast and lunch to students and provide food purchasing grants to public schools.
Proposition MM—which raises taxes on households with annual incomes over $300,000 to fund the meals program—was approved 58.07% to 41.93%. The measure is meant to fill funding gaps in Proposition FF and was spurred by US President Donald Trump's signing of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which inflicted the largest-ever cuts in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), largely to pay for tax cuts for the ultrarich and corporations.
“We're relieved that Colorado kids will continue to have access to free meals at school,” Anya Rose, director pf public policy at the advocacy group Hunger Free Colorado, told Colorado Public Radio (CPR) after the measures' passage. “I think that hunger is top of mind for a lot of people right now, and it's really visible for people. And we know that this is an incredibly popular program that is more important, now than ever, since there are so many people struggling to make ends meet and resources have fallen through for a lot.”
Colorado sent a clear message tonight: no child should ever have to learn on an empty stomach.While Republicans in Washington play politics with our families, our food and our health care, Colorado is stepping up, keeping Healthy School Meals for All alive for 600,000 kids.
[image or embed]
— Colorado Democrats 🇺🇸 (@coloradodems.org) November 4, 2025 at 7:51 PM
Joe Kabourek, who managed the Keep Kids Fed campaign, said in a statement: "Thank you to every voter, volunteer, community partner, and endorsing organization who turned out to pass Propositions LL and MM, ensuring every child in Colorado can continue to get a healthy meal at school."
Nine US states have now enacted laws providing free meals to all public school students regardless of family income: California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont. Cities including Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, DC have enacted similar programs.
Betsy Hayes of Denver recalled the cruelty her children faced from other students for needing free school meals.
“It was very embarrassing for them and stigmatizing to them, and I really would like other kids not to have to go through that,” she told CPR.
"This victory belongs to the thousands of volunteers, many of them with our campaign, who left it all on the field to save absentee voting in Maine," said the US Senate candidate.
With 87% of the vote counted, around two-thirds of Mainers on Tuesday rejected a Republican-backed ballot measure that would have made it harder to vote absentee in a state where more than 370,000 people submitted such ballots last year—a win for democracy that came after US Senate candidate Graham Platner mobilized his supporters to campaign against the proposal.
The oyster farmer and harbormaster is one of multiple Democrats—including term-limited Gov. Janet Mills, who also opposed Question 1—running in the June primary to face longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins next November.
In the lead-up to this year's election, Platner released an animated advertisement and held a major rally in Portland against Question 1, which would have eliminated two days of absentee voting, prohibited requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, ended ongoing absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, banned prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes, limited the number of drop boxes, and required voters to show certain photo identification.
"This victory belongs to the thousands of volunteers, many of them with our campaign, who left it all on the field to save absentee voting in Maine," Platner said on social media after the results were announced late Tuesday, confirming that they worked 2,400 canvass shifts and contacted 49,000 voters.
League of Women Voters of Maine called the outcome "a win for voting rights and for Maine voters."
"Question 1 was a voter suppression bill that would have erected unnecessary barriers to voting," said Jen Lancaster, the group's communications director. "A large number of Maine voters depend on absentee voting to cast their ballot. It's important to protect this vital service and not dismantle it piece by piece."
Mills also welcomed its defeat, saying that "once again, Maine people have affirmed their faith in our free, fair, and secure elections, in this case by rejecting a direct attempt to restrict voting rights. Maine has long had one of the highest rates of voter turnout in the nation, in good part due to safe absentee voting—and Maine people tonight have said they want to keep it that way."
The governor also opposed Question 2, the "red flag" gun law approved by about two-thirds of Mainers on Tuesday. Mills said after the election that "I sincerely hope that this measure will strengthen public safety as proponents have argued. My administration will work with law enforcement and the public to implement this new law, along with our existing extreme risk protection law, to best ensure the safety of Maine people."
Platner, a US military veteran who has taught firearms courses, publicly supported Question 2 but did not campaign for or against it. The ballot measure passed after a 2023 mass shooting in Lewiston left 18 people dead, not including the shooter, whose family, friends, and Army Reserve unit all reported concerns about his mental health and access to firearms before the massacre.
"Maine voters have taken the safety of our communities into our own hands by passing commonsense, responsible gun legislation that will save lives and help keep our kids and families safe, not just from the horrors of a tragedy like Lewiston, but from the devastating impacts of everyday gun violence," Nacole Palmer of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition said in a statement after the vote. "Despite years of opposition from the gun lobby and the politicians they back, we've shown that our movement for commonsense, responsible gun ownership is stronger."
The New York City mayor-elect's victory, said one campaigner, "shows a path for liberals that it doesn’t have to be about 'strong men' leaders—it's issue-led authenticity that can cut through and fight back."
Since young men across the US shifted right in the 2024 elections, with former Vice President Kamala Harris losing to President Donald Trump among men ages 18-29, the Democratic Party has searched for ways to win back the voting bloc—and on Tuesday night, progressives urged leaders to simply look to New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's resounding success.
Exit polls showed Mamdani, a progressive state Assembly member who remained laser-focused on making the city more affordable for working people during his campaign, winning the support of 68% of male voters ages 18-29, while Cuomo won just 26% of them—a margin of 42 points.
The democratic socialist's support among men under the age of 45 was also notable, with a margin of 39 points.
Young male voters swung left in other closely watched races as well, with Virginia Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger winning the group by 15 points and New Jersey Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill winning by 12 points—but observers said Democratic leaders should pay special attention to the "blowout" in New York City as they seek answers about how to win over young men nationwide.
Housing campaigner Matthew Torbitt suggested that Mamdani appealed to young male New Yorkers by speaking clearly and emphatically about the need to make life for all working people more affordable—by establishing a network of city-run grocery stores to compete with private corporations, freezing the rent on rent-stabilized units, and expanding across the city's bus system the pilot program he championed that made one bus line fare-free.
"Young men just need to feel like there is someone on their side," Torbitt said.
Mamdani's victory came less than a month after the centrist think tank Third Way published its own analysis of Democrats' troubled relationship with young male voters.
The group posited that young men have felt "alienated" by the Democrats—partially due to economic issues, with the study acknowledging briefly that young male voters are frustrated that "economic expectations are stacked against them as young men," but also because "Democrats are out of the mainstream on social and cultural issues."
Without naming specific cultural battles that have been named by some strategists and pundits as issues Democrats should move rightward on—like abortion or transgender rights—Third Way spoke to men who said Democrats in recent years had "too much focus on cultural inclusivity" and were not tough enough on immigration.
The analysis also emphasized "masculinity," and one focus group member said the Republican Party had prioritized the undefined quality by embracing "capitalism."
The study echoed calls by US Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who paid homage to former Republican President Ronald Reagan in the Democratic Party's official response to Trump's State of the Union address earlier this year and went on to call on the party to exhibit "alpha energy."
Slotkin acknowledged Spanberger's and Sherrill's successful campaigns on Tuesday night, but made no mention of Mamdani's historic and nationally watched victory.
Journalist and reproductive rights advocate Jessica Valenti emphasized Mamdani's victory among young men in a video she posted to Instagram Tuesday night.
"Young men, who've been skewing more conservative, young men, who mainstream Democratic pundits said we could only win by messaging to the middle, by messaging to the right, by throwing trans rights under the bus, by throwing abortion rights under the bus," she said. "I really hope those people are paying attention tonight."
A year after Trump's victory, said Torbitt, Mamdani's support among young male voters "shows a path for liberals that it doesn’t have to be about 'strong men' leaders—it's issue-led authenticity that can cut through and fight back."