Census controversy

WASHINGTON—The controversy over a decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census has dominated the news coming out of the nation’s capital this week. Critics say the change was designed to provide an electoral advantage to white Republicans, while the Trump administration claims it is just trying to enforce voting laws.

The latest dust-up occurred Wednesday, when the House Oversight Committee voted to hold Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Attorney General William Barr in contempt for refusing to testify about the change to the once-a-decade survey. The committee’s resolution passed largely along party lines—with the exception of Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., who crossed the aisle in the 24-15 vote—and cites what Democrats say is evidence that the Trump administration lied about why it decided to include the new question.

Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said he tried to work with the White House before moving forward with a contempt vote, but “they delayed, dissembled, and degraded our committee’s efforts to conduct this investigation and fulfill our responsibilities under the Constitution.” He called it “part of a strategy” to obstruct congressional oversight powers.

The committee highlighted evidence it said shows officials discussed the matter even before Trump took office. That contradicts Ross’ claims that he sought to add the question at the behest of the Justice Department in order to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

The full House of Representatives now needs to vote on whether to hold Ross and Barr in contempt, but under a separate measure passed this week, committee chairs can take direct legal action against officials who don’t cooperate with subpoenas.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration said Wednesday it would exert executive privilege in order to keep documents related to the census question from Congress.

The fate of the census question itself is awaiting a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments on the case in April. A decision is expected by the end of the month, in time for the Census Bureau to proceed with preparations for the 2020 survey.

The District of Columbia, 18 states, and multiple cities are challenging the new question, arguing fewer immigrants will complete the survey out of fear of revealing their immigration status to authorities.

A Harvard University study estimated that asking respondents about their citizenship would result in 6 million fewer Hispanics responding to the census. The Washington Post concluded the undercount would result in a loss of congressional representation in states like Texas and California, while giving states such as Ohio and Alabama more representation. The result would also affect the allocation of billions of dollars for federal programs like Medicaid that are determined based on state population.

In a motion to the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York, the American Civil Liberties Union contended that new evidence shows Republican redistricting specialist Thomas Hofeller “played a significant role in orchestrating the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census in order to create a structural electoral advantage for, in his own words, ‘Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,’ and that Petitioners obscured his role through affirmative misrepresentations.”

The Trump administration dismissed the claims as an “11th hour campaign” to derail the case based on conjecture.

“There is no smoking gun here; only smoke and mirrors,” the Justice Department wrote in a court filing.

A District Court judge held a hearing on the new claim last week but declined to weigh in before the Supreme Court rules on the broader issue.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Census Bureau said it began testing this week the effects of asking respondents about their citizenship.

Religious freedom flop

Michael Bogren, a Trump administration judicial pick, withdrew his nomination after some Republicans voiced concerns about his record on religious freedom.

The White House tapped Bogren in March to serve on the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Michigan, but Republicans quickly opposed the nomination. In 2017, Bogren represented the city of East Lansing, Mich., against Steve and Bridget Tennes, a Catholic couple who sued the city after they were banned from selling goods at the East Lansing farmers market for declining to host a same-sex wedding at their farm. The city implemented a new ordinance barring farmers market vendors who engaged in practices the city considered discriminatory.

In the motion to dismiss the suit, the city argued that a member of the Ku Klux Klan would not be allowed to refuse services to an interracial couple, or that an imam who was a driving instructor could not refuse to teach a woman to drive.

In a hearing on May 22, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., grilled Bogren on the analogies: “So, you think those things are equivalent. You think that the Catholic family’s pointing to the teachings of their church is equivalent to a KKK member invoking Christianity?”

After a noncommittal back-and-forth, Bogren said he was merely doing his job as a lawyer. “I represent clients, not causes. This is not ideological,” he said. “The point I was trying to make was that religious beliefs trying to justify discrimination if extended to sexual orientation, which the City of East Lansing protects, could be used to try to justify any other discrimination whether it be gender or race.”

Hawley said the city took a “scorched earth” approach that trampled religious freedom. Following the judge’s order, the city issued the Tenneses, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a permit to operate at the farmers market in 2018, but a Michigan federal court heard the case again in April.

After the hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, including Hawley, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Tom Tillis of North Carolina said they would vote against Bogren. Some conservative organizations also voiced opposition to Bogren’s nomination, including the Judicial Crisis Network and the Heritage Foundation.

Bogren defended his record in a statement announcing his withdrawal. He called lawmakers’ concerns a “gross mischaracterization.”

Bogren’s cousin, Margot Cleveland, an adjunct professor at Notre Dame and a writer for The Federalist, defended him, as did other conservatives. Ed Whelan with the Ethics and Public Policy Center said in a National Review op-ed, “Bogren made it clear he was advancing legal arguments on behalf of his client, not expressing his personal views.” Whelan argued that if a lawyer could be disqualified for arguments made on behalf of a client, that same standard “could rebound to the detriment of conservative nominees who have defended religious liberty or pro-life legislation in unpopular contexts.”

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., blamed the issue on vetting. “I'm going to go talk to the White House,” Graham told CNN. “It’s probably something we should have known more about.” —Harvest Prude

2020 update

Quinnipiac released a new slate of polls on Tuesday covering the battle for Democratic nomination for president in 2020 and potential matchups between Democratic candidates and President Donald Trump. Former Vice President Joe Biden’s lead over second-place Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont narrowed from 19 to 11 percent since the last poll, but Biden remains the strongest candidate in a race against Trump, with a solid 13 percent lead over the president.

At about the same time during the last election cycle, Quinnipiac released similar polls for the GOP nomination and possible presidential races. In those polls, Trump trailed seven other Republican candidates and had only 5 percent support. He also trailed Hillary Clinton 50 to 32 percent in a hypothetical matchup.

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who has undergone multiple back surgeries, announced this week that he is suspending his campaign for the summer. Although he suggested that he may return after Labor Day, members of his campaign staff told the Huffington Post he was letting most of them go. —Kyle Ziemnick

This week in Congress

In the House of Representatives

In the Senate

Amash out

After becoming the lone Republican to call for Congress to impeach President Donald Trump, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan stepped down from the House Freedom Caucus on Monday.

“I have the highest regard for them, and they’re my friends,” he told a CNN reporter, but added that he “didn’t want to be a further distraction for the group.”

Amash helped found the Freedom Caucus after his election to Congress during the 2010 tea party wave. The libertarian nevertheless has clashed with the group over Trump administration policies, such as the president’s efforts to ban immigrants from some Muslim-majority nations. After Amash called for impeachment of the president on the grounds of obstruction of justice, the group announced unanimous disapproval of his position.

Amash is now facing two GOP primary challengers in Michigan in 2020, amid a withdrawal of support from some Republican Party donors. He has not ruled out the possibility of challenging Trump in 2020 as a Libertarian candidate for president. —H.P.