[EL] Census case

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Jun 27 09:25:35 PDT 2019


Strongly disagree on that point. A separate injunction barring the inclusion of the question will be necessary in the event the Commerce Dept tries to come back with a new reason for including the question.


From: Josh Blackman <joshblackman at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 9:23 AM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Cc: "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>, "Brunell, Thomas" <tbrunell at utdallas.edu>, Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Census case

The Maryland case is still live, but there is no need to issue an urgent injunction now because the Court remanded the New York case. I think discovery could still proceed, unless the Court stays that decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Blackman
http://JoshBlackman.com
Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610393287/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1610393287&linkCode=as2&tag=joshblaccom-20>
Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, & Executive Power<http://amzn.to/2aqbDwy>


On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:21 AM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
I disagree, and think the case is still live.
I’ve got a piece posting to Slate in a few minutes making this point.

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> on behalf of "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>>
Date: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 9:17 AM
To: "Brunell, Thomas" <tbrunell at utdallas.edu<mailto:tbrunell at utdallas.edu>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: [EL] Census case

I have seen journalists saying that the EP litigation in MD on the Census case will now go forward.  I would think today’s decision instead moots that litigation.  The citizenship question cannot now be added to the Census form.  There is no longer a live issue in front of those courts.

IF the Commerce Department does determine again to add a citizenship question and does provide a new and different rationale for doing so, then that decision will of course be litigated.  And plaintiffs might argue that the “new” citizenship question rests on a discriminatory purpose.  In addition, they might well seek to show that the original decision itself rested on a discriminatory purpose, and that the “new” question is tainted by the prior one.

But that’s all for future litigation.  The pending case on the “old” question in MD is now moot.  Do other disagree with that analysis?

Best,
Rick

Richard H. Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
NYU School of Law
40 Washington Sq. So.
NYC, NY 10012
212 998-6377

From: Brunell, Thomas [mailto:tbrunell at utdallas.edu<mailto:tbrunell at utdallas.edu>]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 12:07 PM
To: Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>>
Cc: Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com<mailto:tpotter at capdale.com>>; Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Breaking: Supreme Court, on 5-4 vote, holds partisan gerrymandering cases nonjusticiable

The fact that he mentions there are approximately the same number of constituents in each district clearly indicates he is talking about everyone.



Tom Brunell, Ph.D.
Professor of Political Science
School of Economic, Political and Policy Science
UT Dallas
800 W. Campbell Road
Richardson, TX 75080
(972) 883-4963



On Jun 27, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>> wrote:

I think the instinct – and I call it that, an instinct, not necessarily a thought-through position -- behind the statement is that anyone in your district is a constituent.  He certainly could have used “voters” or “eligible voters” or “citizens.”  I don’t think legislative offices turn away resident aliens who seek assistance, for example, because they are not “constituents.”



Best,
Rick

Richard H. Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
NYU School of Law
40 Washington Sq. So.
NYC, NY 10012
212 998-6377

From: Trevor Potter [mailto:tpotter at capdale.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 11:57 AM
To: Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Breaking: Supreme Court, on 5-4 vote, holds partisan gerrymandering cases nonjusticiable

How do you think he defines “ constituents”?

Trevor Potter

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 27, 2019, at 5:34 PM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu%3cmailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>>> wrote:

In describing the one-person, one-vote doctrine, CJ Roberts says: “each representative must be accountable to (approximately) the same number of constituents (my emphasis).

If states/localities ever do redistrict based on eligible voters rather than population, I am sure that line will be quoted extensively.

Best,
Rick

Richard H. Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
NYU School of Law
40 Washington Sq. So.
NYC, NY 10012
212 998-6377

From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Adam Bonin
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 10:58 AM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu%3cmailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu%3cmailto:law-election at uci.edu>>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Breaking: Supreme Court, on 5-4 vote, holds partisan gerrymandering cases nonjusticiable

I'm not sure that's even an option. District court already determined that Commerce had never offered other reasons, and remanded just to confirm that Commerce had general jurisdiction to run the Census. See pp 266-70. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/2019-01-15-574-Findings%20Of%20Fact.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.brennancenter.org_sites_default_files_legal-2Dwork_2019-2D01-2D15-2D574-2DFindings-2520Of-2520Fact.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=-GeSXw67sotv25U19eXvb00wdCy7Qan56cOs8AQnRs8&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.brennancenter.org_sites_default_files_legal-2Dwork_2019-2D01-2D15-2D574-2DFindings-2520Of-2520Fact.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=LbJENb2EllxoCgCoJ2HVRc8NEUPigx0yk1vjzx_rQuE&e=>

in short, wrote Judge Furman:

Remand, meanwhile, is appropriate as well, in recognition of the fact that Congress delegated its authority over administration of the census to the Secretary of Commerce, not to this Court. That is not to say that Defendants can or would be able to remedy the defects in Secretary Ross’s decision that this Court has found in time for the 2020 census. But to the extent that a “remand” is even necessary to make clear that the Secretary of Commerce retains authority to make decisions about the census, so long as they are consistent with law and this Court’s Opinion, a remand is appropriate.

The parties’ respective arguments for an alternative remedy are unpersuasive. For their part, Defendants contend that remand without vacatur is “the only potentially appropriate remedy.” Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. 83-85, ¶¶ 80-85. Putting aside whether such a remedy is consistent with the plain language of the APA, it is inappropriate here. Courts authorizing remand without vacatur have done so where the agency shows “at least a serious possibility that [it] will be able to substantiate its decision on remand” and that “the consequences of vacating may be quite disruptive.” Allied-Signal, Inc., 988 F.2d at 151. Defendants have done neither here. The problem with Secretary Ross’s decision was not that it was inadequately explained, but rather that it was substantively arbitrary and capricious and “not in accordance” with statutes that constrain his discretion. And as Plaintiffs correctly point out, “the Secretary has never suggested an alternative basis for his decision.” Pls.’ Proposed Conclusions ¶ 456. Notably, Defendants offer nothing more than a bare conclusory assertion that “there is a non-trivial likelihood that the agency will be able to state a valid legal basis for its decision” on remand. Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. 84, ¶ 83 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Nothing in either the Administrative Record or the trial record even remotely suggests such a “likelihood.”



Adam C. Bonin
The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin
121 S. Broad Street, Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19107

(267) 242-5014 (c)
(215) 701-2321 (f)
adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:adam at boninlaw.com%3cmailto:adam at boninlaw.com>>
http://www.boninlaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.boninlaw.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=5nw5r1b3sb3G1JWIhiJ2DVgax61Ueo6qdXgCirhxC_I&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.boninlaw.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=mkbb2G-jkLnGJBJzMr2UJfXbYH-VB1McmVMLmemoMmc&e=>


On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:41 AM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu%3cmailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>> wrote:
Here’s the link to the opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_18pdf_18-2D966-5Fbq7c.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=qAtiZ17eMvJ732Di9_JC-OXYV_cslaKSgM-4-GQ6f88&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_18pdf_18-2D966-5Fbq7c.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=DQFA1sOXdJTscTCfjVf3QhCvds4_JOEHcXdAO6GhZfw&e=>

Question is whether agency can come up with another explanation in time


From: Pamela S Karlan <pkarlan at stanford.edu<mailto:pkarlan at stanford.edu<mailto:pkarlan at stanford.edu%3cmailto:pkarlan at stanford.edu>>>
Date: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 7:38 AM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu%3cmailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu%3cmailto:law-election at uci.edu>>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Breaking: Supreme Court, on 5-4 vote, holds partisan gerrymandering cases nonjusticiable

Census case got remanded on the grounds that the VRA enforcement rationale can’t support the decision to ask the citizenship question.
Pam Karlan
Stanford Law School
karlan at stanford.edu<mailto:karlan at stanford.edu<mailto:karlan at stanford.edu%3cmailto:karlan at stanford.edu>>
650.725.4851

On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:12 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu%3cmailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>> wrote:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_18pdf_18-2D422-5F9ol1.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=85g-hGm03JlLwImwB0lIr3OygRx-c5p1rQQZLSzCh1o&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_18pdf_18-2D422-5F9ol1.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=a5OruKQ5Zhuzhye4Ja03XDcbASkb58d_KokAg8GKjq4&e=>



--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu%3cmailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uci.edu_faculty_full-2Dtime_hasen_&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=zTd4EHeAUAprQTknF2BB2QppjQqw3XuVIMd60E4jnL0&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uci.edu_faculty_full-2Dtime_hasen_&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=ef5XEfzfYm0obGPKIqVRNXtdfwPdV0BRj4e9n6QP45c&e=>
http://electionlawblog.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__electionlawblog.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=X__JGNarEx4GYxGTlRTwNqCCdY419n39Bzxu4enQMto&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__electionlawblog.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=AiYhbBnmopseHn2mTsS73PXVVdL_3d1NC2XHKrmkikQ&e=>
<image001.png>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu%3cmailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=kuPf1P2mC5tDj4PLhfedwmUTgMbR9zv3Swwmas0ZlSU&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=N3xF4k3FuHKq0_dTIPnYeg7QSieM43kv-RMW84edEn4&e=>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu%3cmailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=kuPf1P2mC5tDj4PLhfedwmUTgMbR9zv3Swwmas0ZlSU&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=N3xF4k3FuHKq0_dTIPnYeg7QSieM43kv-RMW84edEn4&e=>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu%3cmailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=kuPf1P2mC5tDj4PLhfedwmUTgMbR9zv3Swwmas0ZlSU&e=>


<image001.png>

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=ZuOBw7haaSQ5Hm_kmav-ZfhcbMssiV7fPMd9Z76KTPg&s=c1YBiUsY1_c_YbU1EF7vleIjfBKQWTHVdyHAPcASh9M&e=>

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190627/2fdc2a3c/attachment-0001.html>


View list directory