Voting Rights and Democracy

Carrie Severino: Census controversy reflects ‘attempts to push back on the very concept of citizenship’

Carrie Severino, chief counsel to the Judicial Crisis Network, defended President Trump’s decision to add a citizenship question to the Census and suggested that debate over the issue indicated a deeper problem.

“This is something that should be totally unremarkable,” Severino said on Saturday while appearing on “America’s News HQ.”

“The fact it’s even being challenged shows a disturbing trend towards attempts to push back on the very concept of citizenship and its frightening to think there could be several justices in the [Supreme] Court who would suggest that’s not even an appropriate question.”

The citizenship question faced review by the Supreme Court which is expected to announce its ruling on the issue in the Summer of 2019. The question came under scrutiny after news surfaced that one of its proponents pushed the questions as a way to help Republicans electorally.

It also faced criticism from Democrats who predicted it would skew estimates that contributed to decisions about federal funding.

But for Severino, the question’s inclusion was “common sense.” “This is a question that should really be unremarkable. The citizenship question has been on some form of the U.S. Census for the vast majority of its history,” she said.

She added that “it is very foundational that a country ought to know how many citizens it has. It’s something the United Nations recommends its member nations do.”

Elizabeth B. Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, argued that was just a “cover up” reason since citizenship information was already available from other sources.

Severino, in response, pushed back on the idea that people would refuse to answer the question, saying that they decline to answer that question at similar rates to the question of whether they’re married or not.

More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Voting Rights and Democracy
September 5, 2024

“Moore v. Harper, Evasion, and the Ordinary Bounds of Judicial Review”

Election Law Blog
David Gans, Brianne Gorod, and Anna Jessurun have posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming, Boston College Law Review)....
By: Brianne J. Gorod, David H. Gans, Anna Jessurun, Rick Hasen
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

In re: Georgia Senate Bill 202

In In re: Georgia Senate Bill 202, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the Materiality Provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits states from denying...
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Nairne v. Landry

In Nairne v. Landry, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition on vote dilution is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power.
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Paxton

In United States v. Paxton, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the Materiality Provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits states from denying the right...
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Mi Familia Vota v. Petersen

In Mi Familia Vota v. Petersen, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is considering whether requiring voters to include their birthplace on voter registration forms violates the Materiality Provision of the...
Voting Rights and Democracy
May 24, 2024

Voting Rights Experts Find Old Ideas in New Racial Gerrymandering Standard

Courthouse News Service
WASHINGTON (CN) — Seven years ago, Justice Samuel Alito lamented his colleagues' refusal to create...
By: David H. Gans, Kelsey Reichmann