Is California et al trying to “SLAPP” the Census 2020 about Citizenship Questions?

U.S. to add citizenship question in 2020 Census: Commerce Dept

A question about citizenship status will be reinstated on the 2020 Census to help enforce the Voting Rights Act, federal officials said on Monday, amid concerns that the change will compromise the accuracy of the population count.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross decided to add the question to the count after a Department of Justice request based on the desire for better enforcement of the voting law, the U.S. Department of Commerce said in a statement.

U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross testifies to the House Appropriations Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on the Commerce Department’s FY2019 budget request on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 20, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

“Secretary Ross determined that obtaining complete and accurate information to meet this legitimate government purpose outweighed the limited potential adverse impacts,” it said.

Opponents of a Census question about citizenship status say it could further discourage immigrants from participating in the count, especially when they are already fearful of how information could be used against them.

The State of California, which has a large immigrant population, responded early on Tuesday by filing a lawsuit in federal court against the commerce department and census bureau. [1]

Annie!Webber @awebberaz [2]

Are State AGs filing frivolous suits against Fed Gov with criminal intent? These suits appear to combine a SLAPP, attempt to defraud US citizens of funds, provide cover for election interference by foreign entities through election fraud & illegal redistricting.

Frivolous is a suit without merit. NY AG Schneiderman claims the question on the Census “will create an environment of fear and distrust in immigration communities.” First what is an immigration community? Are legal immigrants confined to specific communities? Since when?

See AG Schneiderman’s comments in this Fox piece.


AG Scheiderman and other AGs filing suit claim no precedent that such a question prevented any percentage of legal immigrant new citizens from responding to a Census during a specific Census year. Census surveys have been conducted since 1790. Where is merit for this claim?

A Frivolous suit is a suit filed with no merit or basis. Usually to harass an opposing party.


Schneiderman is quoted in the above linked Fox piece as saying the question on the Census would “deprive our states of their fair share of hundreds of billions in federal funds…” Schneiderman admitting these suits are also an attempt to defraud other states and districts US citizens out of a more equitable distribution of federal funds in order to provide funding to districts and states illegal immigrant population? Ah, how handy the misnomer of “immigrant communities.”

In this same Fox piece, Schneiderman is quoted as saying “…threaten our states’ fair representation in Congress.” So is he admitting these suits purpose is to facilitate illegal redistricting by count of non-citizens on the Census?

Additionally, attempt to omit such questions on the Census also prevents tracking of legal voters in district precincts, facilitating cover for voter fraud and foreign election interference. Dear AGs, foreign entity election interference does include citizens of other countries and not of the US voting in US elections.

How Redistricting works:


Finally SLAPP. While these AGs may attempt to claim this question on the Census would prevent legal citizens, aka, those in legal citizens confined to these fantastical “immigrant communities,” there is no precedent for this claim. This suit is a SLAPP against legal US citizens in that it is endeavors to prevent legal US citizens’ First Amendment rights through the ballot box, by attempting means of illegal redistricting and omission of Census data used to determine foreign entities election interference through voter fraud.

Only US citizens have protection of their Amendment rights under our Constitution.

Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) [6]

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.
The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization’s ability to operate. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat.
There is a difficulty in that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate, or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims. Thus, anti-SLAPP laws target tactics used by SLAPP plaintiffs. Common anti-SLAPP laws include measures such as penalties for plaintiffs who file lawsuits ruled frivolous and special procedures where a defendant may ask a judge to consider that a lawsuit is a SLAPP (and usually subsequently dismiss the suit).
Anti-SLAPP laws occasionally come under criticism from those who believe that there should not be barriers to the right to petition for those who sincerely believe they have been wronged, regardless of ulterior motives. Nonetheless, anti-SLAPP laws are generally considered to have a favorable effect, and many lawyers have fought to enact stronger laws protecting against SLAPPs.


At Least A Dozen States Plan To Sue Over New Census Citizenship Question

“A fair and accurate count of all people in America is one of the federal government’s most solemn constitutional obligations.”

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said he would lead a multistate coalition to block the decision the Commerce Department announced on Monday. The addition of a citizenship question is highly controversial, and civil rights groups have long claimed it could jeopardize the accuracy of the census.

The census is constitutionally mandated every 10 years and must count every resident in the United States, citizen or not. The results inform everything from political boundaries to the allocation of more than $675 billion a year in federal funding.

Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder also said his organization, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, will sue.

The addition of a citizenship question to the census questionnaire is a direct attack on our representative democracy,” he said in a statement. “Make no mistake ― this decision is motivated purely by politics. In deciding to add this question without even testing its effects, the Administration is departing from decades of census policy and ignoring the warnings of census experts.” [7]


The list of states suing over a census that asks whether you’re a citizen (kind of necessary to know how many *Americans* we have) are all states that have problems from progressive social policies.

  • California
  • New York
  • New Jersey
  • Connecticut
  • Delaware
  • Illinois
  • Massachusetts
  • New Mexico
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania
  • Rhode Island
  • Washington

These are states that are LOSING PEOPLE.
Yes, you read that right. So on the one hand, the workers are fleeing California and Illinois, and on the other, their governments are suing Trump to protect the policies people are fleeing *from*.
They are blighted by high crime, high unemployment, and the high taxes that wealth redistribution programs cultivate. I noticed this with California under Obama. They were hurt the most by him (Obamacare chased off jobs their high taxes hadn’t, I watched tent cities grow, along with, welfare rolls and crime), and the most upset when Hillary didn’t win an Obama third term. They call that Stockholm Syndrome – when you identify with the person who is/was abusing you.


[1] Reuters

[2] Twitter – AnnieWebber

[3] FoxNews

[4] LegalMatch


[6] Wikipedia

[7] Huffington Post