vox--2020-10-13--Amy Coney Barrett used an offensive term while talking about LGBTQ rights. Her apology was telling.

While discussing LGBTQ rights , Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Tuesday used a term that LGBTQ activists have called “ offensive , ” “ outdated , ” and a “ dog whistle.
” “ I have no agenda , and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference , ” Barrett said , when asked about her stance on preserving protections for members of the LGBTQ community .
The term “ sexual preference , ” however , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual orientation is a choice , Lambda Legal , a legal advocacy group , explained on Twitter .
Rep. David Cicilline ( D-RI ) said the phrase was a “ 1970s term.
” And Slate ’ s Mark Joseph Stern broke down why Barrett ’ s use of it was so concerning : As Jesse Bering explained in 2013 , the term is similar to other expressions , like “ the gay lifestyle ” or “ avowed homosexual , ” that were once common but are now considered offensive .
These phrases play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not a discrete and insular minority deserving of constitutional protections but rather deviants who should not be rewarded for their aberrant sexuality .
Sens .
Mazie Hirono and Cory Booker later confronted Barrett about her statement , prompting her to apologize .
“ Sexual orientation is a key part of a person ’ s identity , ” Hirono said .
Barrett ’ s apology , however , was also telling , signaling that she seemingly hadn ’ t even realized that she was using harmful language .
“ I certainly didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community , ” Barrett said .
“ So if I did , I greatly apologize for that .
I simply meant to be referring to Obergefell ’ s holding with respect to same-sex marriage.
” Obergefell v. Hodges , the landmark Supreme Court case guaranteeing marriage equality , is among the precedents that Barrett declined to provide a position on , citing the need to maintain impartiality — an approach many nominees have taken in the past .
Her statement about “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how out of touch Barrett appears to be in how she talks about LGBTQ rights , which she ’ d play a critical role in making judicial decisions about if she were to become a Supreme Court Justice .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

While discussing LGBTQ rights, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Tuesday used a term that LGBTQ activists have called “offensive,” “outdated,” and a “dog whistle.”
“I have no agenda, and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference,” Barrett said, when asked about her stance on preserving protections for members of the LGBTQ community.
The term “sexual preference,” however, is an offensive one, which suggests that sexual orientation is a choice, Lambda Legal, a legal advocacy group, explained on Twitter.
IMPORTANT:
Barrett used "sexual preference" (not "sexual orientation") when discussing her views on marriage equality.
This is a dogwhistle. The term "sexual preference" is used by opponents of equality to suggest that being #LGBTQ is a choice.#BlockBarrett #SCOTUSHearing pic.twitter.com/kkftq9l2l5 — Lambda Legal (@LambdaLegal) October 13, 2020
Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) said the phrase was a “1970s term.” And Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern broke down why Barrett’s use of it was so concerning:
As Jesse Bering explained in 2013, the term is similar to other expressions, like “the gay lifestyle” or “avowed homosexual,” that were once common but are now considered offensive. These phrases play into the anti-gay canard that sexual minorities are not a discrete and insular minority deserving of constitutional protections but rather deviants who should not be rewarded for their aberrant sexuality.
Sens. Mazie Hirono and Cory Booker later confronted Barrett about her statement, prompting her to apologize. “Sexual orientation is a key part of a person’s identity,” Hirono said.
The correct term is sexual orientation. "Sexual preference" is a term often used by anti-LGBTQ activists to imply that sexual orientation is a choice. https://t.co/rT6g95gsG1 — GLAAD (@glaad) October 13, 2020
Barrett’s apology, however, was also telling, signaling that she seemingly hadn’t even realized that she was using harmful language.
“I certainly didn’t mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community,” Barrett said. “So if I did, I greatly apologize for that. I simply meant to be referring to Obergefell’s holding with respect to same-sex marriage.”
Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark Supreme Court case guaranteeing marriage equality, is among the precedents that Barrett declined to provide a position on, citing the need to maintain impartiality — an approach many nominees have taken in the past.
Her statement about “sexual preference,” however, revealed how out of touch Barrett appears to be in how she talks about LGBTQ rights, which she’d play a critical role in making judicial decisions about if she were to become a Supreme Court Justice.


vox--2020-10-13--7 key moments from Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court hearing

Judge Amy Coney Barrett spent much of the first day of questions in her confirmation hearing invoking what ’ s known as the “ Ginsburg rule ” and refusing to provide a position on whether she agreed with past precedents .
It ’ s an approach made famous by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ( though she actually spoke much more freely on some subjects ) — and it provides little additional insight regarding Barrett ’ s positions on issues including reproductive rights and the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) .
Barrett did , however , comment more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not “ hostile ” to the ACA , despite criticizing past decisions that upheld the law .
She also said repeatedly that she did not have an “ agenda ” to overturn Planned Parenthood v. Casey , a 1992 decision that reaffirmed someone ’ s right to an abortion , though her past opinions signal an openness to limiting these rights .
“ I ’ ve made no commitment to anyone about how I would decide any case , ” Barrett emphasized , noting that President Donald Trump and his staffers had not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific cases — a concern many Democrats have highlighted given his previously stated promises to appoint anti-abortion nominees and judges who ’ d overturn the ACA .
Barrett also noted repeatedly that she adhered to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ’ s judicial philosophy of originalism , but emphasized that she ’ d bring her own perspective to the role .
“ If I were confirmed , you ’ d be getting Justice Barrett , not Justice Scalia , ” she said .
Here are seven of the key moments from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Barrett doesn ’ t say that the president is unable to single-handedly delay an election Congress , not the president , would have to pass a law to delay an election , but Barrett declined to make this point when she was asked about the subject .
As Vox ’ s Aaron Rupar wrote , when Barrett was pressed directly about the president ’ s power to delay an election , she punted , indicating that she was unwilling to take a straightforward position on the question .
“ If that question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process , ” she said .
“ So , you know , if I give off-the-cuff answers , then I would be basically a legal pundit , and I don ’ t think we want judges to be legal pundits .
I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.
” 2 ) Barrett won ’ t commit to recusal on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When asked whether she ’ d recuse herself on cases reviewing the outcome of the upcoming election or the preservation of the Affordable Care Act , Barrett said she wouldn ’ t be able to commit to such a move at this point .
“ That ’ s not a question I can answer in the abstract , ” Barrett said when pressed about whether she ’ d participate in the upcoming November case about the ACA .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has previously argued that Barrett should recuse herself from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions preserving the law — and because of Trump ’ s comments about picking judges who ’ d undo it .
Similarly , when Sen. Patrick Leahy ( D-VT ) probed a possible conflict of interest , Barrett wouldn ’ t agree to recuse herself if a case related to the election were before the Court .
In Leahy ’ s exchange with Barrett , Leahy wondered whether Trump could be choosing someone for the Court who would favor his position if a case about the election ’ s outcome came before it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully and faithfully apply the law of recusal , ” Barrett said .
“ I can ’ t offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.
” “ I would certainly hope that all members of this committee would have confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people , ” she later emphasized .
3 ) Barrett declined to take a position on whether Roe was wrongly decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Roe was wrongly decided , like Scalia did , and she dodged the question several times — citing the same reasoning that other nominees have in the past .
“ I ’ m going to invoke Justice Kagan ’ s description , which I think is perfectly put , ” she said , “ She said that she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down.
” Barrett ’ s judicial track record signals that she ’ d likely be open to further restricting abortion access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has previously explained : “ I don ’ t have an agenda .
I have no agenda to try to overrule Casey , ” Barrett said .
In an exchange with Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) , she also declined to classify Roe v. Wade as a “ super-precedent ” like Brown v. Board of Education .
The term “ super-precedent ” refers to court decisions that Barrett described as settled to the degree “ that no political actors push further overruling.
” “ Roe is not a super-precedent , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean it should be overruled.
” 4 ) Barrett said she can ’ t take a position on the upcoming ACA case The impending ACA case was another area where Barrett declined to provide more specifics .
“ The canons of judicial conduct would prevent me from expressing a view , ” she said , when pressed on her perspective about the arguments involved .
In the lawsuit , a group of Republican state attorneys general is arguing that the individual mandate — which no longer includes a penalty — is no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a result .
Justices will also weigh whether the broader law is unconstitutional if the individual mandate is deemed as such .
Barrett in the past has criticized Justice John Roberts ’ s reasoning for upholding the ACA in NFIB v. Sebelius in 2012 , though she argued that this pushback did not mean she was broadly “ hostile ” toward the law itself .
“ I am not hostile to the ACA .
I am not hostile to any statute that you pass , ” Barrett said .
“ I apply the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you make the policy.
” 5 ) Barrett says she would set aside personal beliefs while making judicial decisions The relationship between Barrett ’ s religious views and potential judicial decisions was a focus of Barrett ’ s 2017 confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court , though it has not been raised by Democrats to the same degree during this year ’ s panel .
This is in part because of how some lawmakers botched the subject last time , making it seem as though they were attacking her faith and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judge .
Barrett is a devout Catholic , and she ’ s previously written about how a judge ’ s Catholic faith could impact their approach to cases involving capital punishment .
On Tuesday , Barrett said she ’ d continue to set aside her Catholic beliefs , and her broader personal beliefs , while making judicial decisions — and emphasized the process she would take to interpret the law .
“ Judges can ’ t just wake up one day and say , ‘ I have an agenda .
I like guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion , I hate abortion , ’ and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world , ” she said .
“ You have to wait for cases and controversies , which is the language of the Constitution , to wind their way through the process.
” Barrett declined , too , to offer her stance on Obergefell v. Hodges , a 2015 case that guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry , noting that she didn ’ t expect a challenge to make it to the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protections for the LGBTQ community , however , she used the term “ sexual preference , ” which prompted outcry from many LGBTQ rights organizations who noted that “ sexual orientation ” is the correct term .
“ I have no agenda , and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference , ” Barrett said as part of her answer .
“ The term ‘ sexual preference ’ is used by opponents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBTQ is a choice , ” Lambda Legal , a legal advocacy group , noted in a tweet .
Sen. Mazie Hirono ( D-HI ) later confronted Barrett about her use of the term , prompting her to issue an apology .
“ I would never mean to use a term that would cause offense in the LGBTQ community , ” Barrett said .
“ So if I did , I greatly apologize for that.
” 7 ) Barrett acknowledges implicit bias in criminal justice system , after questioning from Sen. Cory Booker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presence of implicit racial bias in the criminal justice system — something that Vice President Mike Pence dismissed in a recent debate .
Reading off data points , including one that described how prosecutors were more likely to charge Black defendants with offenses that carry harsh mandatory minimum sentences than white defendants in comparable cases , Booker asked if the data surprised Barrett .
Booker focused on the subject as part of a series of questions he asked Barrett about racial justice , including an opinion she had written in a prior case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said she ’ d seen studies about bias and eventually acknowledged its existence in a somewhat roundabout way .
“ It would be hard to imagine a criminal justice system as big as ours without having any implicit bias in it , ” she said .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Judge Amy Coney Barrett spent much of the first day of questions in her confirmation hearing invoking what’s known as the “Ginsburg rule” and refusing to provide a position on whether she agreed with past precedents. It’s an approach made famous by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (though she actually spoke much more freely on some subjects) — and it provides little additional insight regarding Barrett’s positions on issues including reproductive rights and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Barrett did, however, comment more broadly. She noted that she was not “hostile” to the ACA, despite criticizing past decisions that upheld the law. She also said repeatedly that she did not have an “agenda” to overturn Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 decision that reaffirmed someone’s right to an abortion, though her past opinions signal an openness to limiting these rights.
“I’ve made no commitment to anyone about how I would decide any case,” Barrett emphasized, noting that President Donald Trump and his staffers had not discussed how she’d rule on specific cases — a concern many Democrats have highlighted given his previously stated promises to appoint anti-abortion nominees and judges who’d overturn the ACA.
Barrett also noted repeatedly that she adhered to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s judicial philosophy of originalism, but emphasized that she’d bring her own perspective to the role. “If I were confirmed, you’d be getting Justice Barrett, not Justice Scalia,” she said.
Here are seven of the key moments from the confirmation hearing so far.
1) Barrett doesn’t say that the president is unable to single-handedly delay an election
FEINSTEIN: Does the Constitution give POTUS authority to unilaterally delay an election under any circumstances?
CONEY BARRETT: "If that question ever came before me, I'd need to hear arguments from the litigants & read briefs... I don't think we want judges to be legal pundits" pic.twitter.com/N4skDHlPQI — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 13, 2020
Congress, not the president, would have to pass a law to delay an election, but Barrett declined to make this point when she was asked about the subject.
As Vox’s Aaron Rupar wrote, when Barrett was pressed directly about the president’s power to delay an election, she punted, indicating that she was unwilling to take a straightforward position on the question.
“If that question ever came before me, I’d need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process,” she said. “So, you know, if I give off-the-cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit, and I don’t think we want judges to be legal pundits. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.”
2) Barrett won’t commit to recusal on cases about the election or the ACA
When asked whether she’d recuse herself on cases reviewing the outcome of the upcoming election or the preservation of the Affordable Care Act, Barrett said she wouldn’t be able to commit to such a move at this point.
“That’s not a question I can answer in the abstract,” Barrett said when pressed about whether she’d participate in the upcoming November case about the ACA. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has previously argued that Barrett should recuse herself from the case because of her criticisms of past decisions preserving the law — and because of Trump’s comments about picking judges who’d undo it.
Similarly, when Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) probed a possible conflict of interest, Barrett wouldn’t agree to recuse herself if a case related to the election were before the Court. In Leahy’s exchange with Barrett, Leahy wondered whether Trump could be choosing someone for the Court who would favor his position if a case about the election’s outcome came before it.
“I commit to you to fully and faithfully apply the law of recusal,” Barrett said. “I can’t offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.”
“I would certainly hope that all members of this committee would have confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people,” she later emphasized.
3) Barrett declined to take a position on whether Roe was wrongly decided
Amy Coney Barrett won't answer Feinstein's questions about whether she thinks Roe was wrongly decided pic.twitter.com/kgSQ3rckux — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 13, 2020
Barrett was asked repeatedly whether she believed that Roe was wrongly decided, like Scalia did, and she dodged the question several times — citing the same reasoning that other nominees have in the past.
“I’m going to invoke Justice Kagan’s description, which I think is perfectly put,” she said, “She said that she was not going to grade precedent or give it a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down.”
Barrett’s judicial track record signals that she’d likely be open to further restricting abortion access, as Vox’s Ian Millhiser has previously explained:
In Planned Parenthood v. Box (2019), Barrett joined a brief dissent arguing that her court should rehear a case that blocked an anti-abortion law before that law took effect. That opinion argued that “preventing a state statute from taking effect is a judicial act of extraordinary gravity in our federal structure” — suggesting that Barrett would have prevented her court from blocking the anti-abortion law at the heart of that case if given the chance.
“I don’t have an agenda. I have no agenda to try to overrule Casey,” Barrett said.
In an exchange with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), she also declined to classify Roe v. Wade as a “super-precedent” like Brown v. Board of Education. The term “super-precedent” refers to court decisions that Barrett described as settled to the degree “that no political actors push further overruling.”
“Roe is not a super-precedent,” she said. “But that does not mean it should be overruled.”
4) Barrett said she can’t take a position on the upcoming ACA case
The impending ACA case was another area where Barrett declined to provide more specifics. “The canons of judicial conduct would prevent me from expressing a view,” she said, when pressed on her perspective about the arguments involved.
In the lawsuit, a group of Republican state attorneys general is arguing that the individual mandate — which no longer includes a penalty — is no longer a tax, and is unconstitutional as a result. Justices will also weigh whether the broader law is unconstitutional if the individual mandate is deemed as such.
Barrett in the past has criticized Justice John Roberts’s reasoning for upholding the ACA in NFIB v. Sebelius in 2012, though she argued that this pushback did not mean she was broadly “hostile” toward the law itself.
“I am not hostile to the ACA. I am not hostile to any statute that you pass,” Barrett said. “I apply the law, I follow the law, you make the policy.”
5) Barrett says she would set aside personal beliefs while making judicial decisions
The relationship between Barrett’s religious views and potential judicial decisions was a focus of Barrett’s 2017 confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit Court, though it has not been raised by Democrats to the same degree during this year’s panel. This is in part because of how some lawmakers botched the subject last time, making it seem as though they were attacking her faith and not its connection to her role as a judge.
Barrett is a devout Catholic, and she’s previously written about how a judge’s Catholic faith could impact their approach to cases involving capital punishment. On Tuesday, Barrett said she’d continue to set aside her Catholic beliefs, and her broader personal beliefs, while making judicial decisions — and emphasized the process she would take to interpret the law.
“Judges can’t just wake up one day and say, ‘I have an agenda. I like guns, I hate guns. I like abortion, I hate abortion,’ and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” she said. “You have to wait for cases and controversies, which is the language of the Constitution, to wind their way through the process.”
6) Barrett used a “dog whistle” term while discussing LGBTQ rights
Barrett declined, too, to offer her stance on Obergefell v. Hodges, a 2015 case that guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry, noting that she didn’t expect a challenge to make it to the Supreme Court. While describing her position on protections for the LGBTQ community, however, she used the term “sexual preference,” which prompted outcry from many LGBTQ rights organizations who noted that “sexual orientation” is the correct term.
“I have no agenda, and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference,” Barrett said as part of her answer.
“The term ‘sexual preference’ is used by opponents of equality to suggest that being #LGBTQ is a choice,” Lambda Legal, a legal advocacy group, noted in a tweet.
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) later confronted Barrett about her use of the term, prompting her to issue an apology. “I would never mean to use a term that would cause offense in the LGBTQ community,” Barrett said. “So if I did, I greatly apologize for that.”
7) Barrett acknowledges implicit bias in criminal justice system, after questioning from Sen. Cory Booker
Sen. Cory Booker pressed Barrett about the presence of implicit racial bias in the criminal justice system — something that Vice President Mike Pence dismissed in a recent debate.
Reading off data points, including one that described how prosecutors were more likely to charge Black defendants with offenses that carry harsh mandatory minimum sentences than white defendants in comparable cases, Booker asked if the data surprised Barrett.
Booker focused on the subject as part of a series of questions he asked Barrett about racial justice, including an opinion she had written in a prior case about a hostile work environment.
Barrett said she’d seen studies about bias and eventually acknowledged its existence in a somewhat roundabout way. “It would be hard to imagine a criminal justice system as big as ours without having any implicit bias in it,” she said.


vox--2020-10-13--How the 2020 census struggled to overcome Trump to get an accurate count

The court battle over when the census self-response period can end is effectively over , with a Supreme Court decision allowing the Trump administration to end it whenever it so chooses — likely as soon as possible .
2020 has been a strange and unpredictable year for so many things , and the US census is no exception .
Some of its challenges were anticipated : It ’ s America ’ s first digital census , with the majority of self-responses expected to come through the online option .
The census has also been dealing with funding cuts and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclude undocumented immigrants from its count .
But the pandemic added a whole new set of problems to the mix , resulting in what some experts fear will be the least accurate census in modern history .
Since the census determines how many representatives states get in Congress and how federal funding is distributed , undercounted communities will be deprived of resources and representation .
You can help avoid this by responding now if you haven ’ t already ( and while you still can ) .
In a normal year , self-response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by July 31 .
When the pandemic pushed everything back , the Census Bureau set a new response deadline of October 31 and a deadline to process the data and give the results to the president of April 30 , 2021 .
Everyone , including President Trump , seemed to agree this was necessary .
Then , in August , the Trump administration abruptly changed course , and the Bureau announced a new response deadline of September 30 in order to have the apportionment counts by December 31 .
Several organizations and some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Commerce , which oversees the Bureau , to keep the October and April deadlines .
The case worked its way up the judicial system food chain until the Supreme Court denied a stay to keep the deadline at October 31 .
The Trump administration has said it wants to end the self-response period as soon as possible to have enough time to process the data it collected and present the results to the president by December 31 — a deadline that Census Bureau officials have already said is impossible to meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that deadline will be extended .
Why you should respond “ The census is the largest , most complex activity this nation conducts short of mobilizing for war , ” Terri Ann Lowenthal , former staff director of the House census oversight subcommittee and census consultant , told Recode .
“ The census is the largest , most complex activity this nation conducts short of mobilizing for war ” The census count affects everything from how many seats in the House of Representatives a state gets to how trillions of dollars in federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country for the next 10 years .
That money goes to things like Medicaid , roads , education , assistance for lower-income families , and environmental programs .
Your life will be affected , one way or another , by the census results .
It happens once every 10 years , it ’ s mandated in the Constitution , and you are legally required to respond to it .
But not everyone does : In previous recent censuses , roughly two-thirds of the population self-responded , and that ’ s about how many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But this national number can be a bit misleading , as self-response rates vary across the country .
The rest of the count comes from census takers who go to the homes of nonrespondents , and then from other methods the census uses to impute whoever is still missing .
But the self-response is generally considered to be the most accurate answer , so the more of those the census gets , the better .
This is especially true for so-called “ hard to count ” areas , where people are more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tend to be certain minorities , people with lower incomes , people who live in rural or remote communities , and young children .
The Census Bureau gives four main reasons why some groups are hard to count : hard to locate , hard to contact , hard to persuade , and hard to interview .
For 2020 , the Census Bureau promoted an online option that makes it easier than ever for most people to respond .
Unless you live in certain remote or rural communities that don ’ t have physical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have received a notice in the mail with your census ID , which you can use to log into the online questionnaire .
If you don ’ t have your census ID , just click this link to answer a few additional questions about your address and you ’ ll be able to fill out the questionnaire .
If you don ’ t have an address , that ’ s okay , too : You can and should still answer with as much information about your location as possible .
If you don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internet or would rather respond offline , you can call ( 844 ) 330-2020 if you speak English and live in the 50 states or Washington , DC .
If you need to answer in another language or if you live in Puerto Rico , check this for a list of phone numbers for the one that applies to your situation .
A third option is in the mail .
If you didn ’ t respond to the initial invitation mailed to you in March , you should have received a paper questionnaire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you don ’ t respond If you don ’ t self-respond , you ’ re leaving it up to someone else to ensure that you ’ ll be counted accurately — or at all .
Census takers , or enumerators , will try to visit every household that doesn ’ t self-respond , a process that was supposed to begin in May .
The pandemic pushed things back significantly , so census takers began their work in most places in mid-August .
If census takers are unable to reach you through their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proxies — asking your neighbor or landlord to supply the information instead , for instance — or they will just mark your home as vacant .
The more work enumerators have to do and the less time they have to do it , the less accurate the census count will likely be .
“ More self-response means better data , so more time for self-response is a good thing , ” Steven Romalewski , director of the mapping service at the Center for Urban Research at City University of New York Graduate Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Count ” map , told Recode .
Romalewski said the recent ruling extending the deadline “ also means the Bureau will stick to its Covid-19 timeframe for nonresponse follow-up , meaning the door-knocking enumeration won ’ t be rushed , and census takers will have the time they had planned on to be more thorough in reaching people in the hardest-to-count communities.
” After the self-response and door-to-door enumeration deadline passes ( whenever that is ) , the Bureau will switch to other means to complete the count , like using existing administrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Social Security Administration and state departments of motor vehicles .
These are considered to be the least accurate method of counting , and the most likely to miss typically undercounted populations .
Why 2020 ’ s census could be one of the least accurate ever Between budget cuts , politics , and the pandemic , the 2020 census — an already complex and massive undertaking — has been more difficult to pull off .
Experts have been warning for years that the 2020 census is underfunded to the point that it could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s presidency , but Trump hasn ’ t helped matters .
“ We ’ ve never had a pandemic like this ; we ’ ve never had a political climate this bad , ” Romalewski said .
“ In some ways , it ’ s impressive that we ’ ve even gotten to this level .
But we know that in 2010 , even with a higher self-response rate , there were still problems with the accuracy , the count , as far as certain population groups go .
So despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do better.
” Trump was determined to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census , the justification for which remained elusive — which was why the Supreme Court struck it down .
But Trump ’ s push for it still discouraged many undocumented immigrants from responding .
Their undocumented status could also mean they don ’ t show up in the administrative records the Bureau will use to fill in the numbers of people who weren ’ t counted by enumerators or self-responses .
“ It really did enormous damage to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Census Bureau in order to participate , ” Romalewski said .
The Trump administration is now trying to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census , recently ordering that their numbers not be included when determining congressional apportionments .
The final decision on this will likely be determined by the Supreme Court in the coming months .
The pandemic has added several new wrinkles to the already troubled process .
Planned in-person events to spread awareness or take census counts — which often focus on hard-to-count areas — have been canceled or replaced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t do much for areas with limited or no internet access , which tend to be undercounted in the first place .
Even some of the questionnaire distributions have had to be delayed .
Typically , homes that don ’ t have regular mail delivery — remote or rural communities , including Native American reservations — get their census forms through hand delivery .
The pandemic delayed these , which therefore delayed their responses .
People also may be less inclined to open their door and talk to a stranger when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonresponse followups .
The Census Bureau has had trouble hiring and retaining census takers due , in part , to their reluctance to be exposed to multitudes of people in the middle of a pandemic ( the bureau was already having trouble getting enough workers before the pandemic hit ) .
The new timing of in-person operations is also not ideal , Lowenthal told Recode .
Coming in late summer and early fall puts it in the middle of wildfire and hurricane season — two things that make it difficult to conduct in-person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ length of time that has elapsed between the census date of April 1 and the beginning of the in-person counts , as well as the significantly increased movement of people around the country because of the pandemic , may also cause accuracy issues .
“ Once the population started to churn because of the pandemic , the Census Bureau faced an unprecedented challenge of trying to count people who have moved from where they could have been residing months ago , ” Lowenthal said .
The Census Bureau had planned to compensate for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the results from December 31 , 2020 , to April 30 , 2021 .
But the Senate has so far failed to act to extend the deadline , despite the House passing a bill that included an extension and bipartisan support in the Senate .
While Secretary Ross has said he believes it is possible to have a complete and accurate count by December 31 , many experts disagree .
Internal Census Bureau emails show its employees have serious concerns , and the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Commerce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accelerated timeline will likely increase the risk of errors .
A report from the American Statistical Association estimated that cutting the response deadline short would mean significantly fewer households will be counted in some states .
In other words , the communities that already tend to have the lowest self-response rates are more likely to be inaccurately counted again .
There is one bright spot here : the online self-response system .
Leading up to the census , there were concerns that too much traffic at once could cause the site to crash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cybersecurity attack .
That doesn ’ t appear to have happened .
“ The majority of people responding to the 2020 census on their own have done so online , the online response has not experienced a single moment of downtime since it opened in March , ” the Census Bureau told Recode .
So , why don ’ t you go ahead and fill yours out now .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as little as $ 3 .

The court battle over when the census response period can end is effectively over, with a Supreme Court decision allowing the Trump administration to end it whenever it so chooses — and it has chosen October 15. Door-to-door field operations will end that day, while the internet self-response option will be open until October 16, 5:59 am ET (that’s to give Hawaiians a deadline of 11:59 pm, October 15).
2020 has been a strange and unpredictable year for so many things, and the US census is no exception.
Some of its challenges were anticipated: It’s America’s first digital census, with the majority of self-responses expected to come through the online option. The census has also been dealing with funding cuts and the Trump administration’s continued attempts to exclude undocumented immigrants from its count. But the pandemic added a whole new set of problems to the mix, resulting in what some experts fear will be the least accurate census in modern history.
Since the census determines how many representatives states get in Congress and how federal funding is distributed, undercounted communities will be deprived of resources and representation. You can help avoid this by responding now if you haven’t already.
In a normal year, self-response and door-to-door census-taking would have been done by July 31. When the pandemic pushed everything back, the Census Bureau set a new response deadline of October 31 and a deadline to process the data and give the results to the president of April 30, 2021. Everyone, including President Trump, seemed to agree this was necessary. Then, in August, the Trump administration abruptly changed course, and the Bureau announced a new response deadline of September 30 in order to have the apportionment counts by December 31. Several organizations and some municipalities sued the Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce, which oversees the Bureau, to keep the October and April deadlines. The case worked its way up the judicial system food chain until the Supreme Court denied a stay to keep the deadline at October 31. It remains to be seen whether the apportionment count deadline will be extended.
Why you should respond
“The census is the largest, most complex activity this nation conducts short of mobilizing for war,” Terri Ann Lowenthal, former staff director of the House census oversight subcommittee and census consultant, told Recode.
“The census is the largest, most complex activity this nation conducts short of mobilizing for war”
The census count affects everything from how many seats in the House of Representatives a state gets to how trillions of dollars in federal funds are distributed to communities across the country for the next 10 years. That money goes to things like Medicaid, roads, education, assistance for lower-income families, and environmental programs. Your life will be affected, one way or another, by the census results.
It happens once every 10 years, it’s mandated in the Constitution, and you are legally required to respond to it. But not everyone does: In previous recent censuses, roughly two-thirds of the population self-responded, and that’s about how many have self-responded this year so far. But this national number can be a bit misleading, as self-response rates vary across the country.
The rest of the count comes from census takers who go to the homes of nonrespondents, and then from other methods the census uses to impute whoever is still missing. But the self-response is generally considered to be the most accurate answer, so the more of those the census gets, the better. This is especially true for so-called “hard to count” areas, where people are more likely to be undercounted or missed. Those tend to be certain minorities, people with lower incomes, people who live in rural or remote communities, and young children. The Census Bureau gives four main reasons why some groups are hard to count: hard to locate, hard to contact, hard to persuade, and hard to interview.
How to respond
For 2020, the Census Bureau promoted an online option that makes it easier than ever for most people to respond. Unless you live in certain remote or rural communities that don’t have physical addresses for mail service, you should have received a notice in the mail with your census ID, which you can use to log into the online questionnaire. If you don’t have your census ID, just click this link to answer a few additional questions about your address and you’ll be able to fill out the questionnaire. If you don’t have an address, that’s okay, too: You can and should still answer with as much information about your location as possible.
If you don’t have easy access to the internet or would rather respond offline, you can call (844) 330-2020 if you speak English and live in the 50 states or Washington, DC. If you need to answer in another language or if you live in Puerto Rico, check this for a list of phone numbers for the one that applies to your situation.
A third option is in the mail. If you didn’t respond to the initial invitation mailed to you in March, you should have received a paper questionnaire to mail back instead.
What happens if you don’t respond
If you don’t self-respond, you’re leaving it up to someone else to ensure that you’ll be counted accurately — or at all. Census takers, or enumerators, will try to visit every household that doesn’t self-respond, a process that was supposed to begin in May. The pandemic pushed things back significantly, so census takers began their work in most places in mid-August. If census takers are unable to reach you through their door-to-door efforts, they might rely on proxies — asking your neighbor or landlord to supply the information instead, for instance — or they will just mark your home as vacant. The more work enumerators have to do and the less time they have to do it, the less accurate the census count will likely be.
“More self-response means better data, so more time for self-response is a good thing,” Steven Romalewski, director of the mapping service at the Center for Urban Research at City University of New York Graduate Center and creator of the “Hard to Count” map, told Recode. Romalewski said the recent ruling extending the deadline “also means the Bureau will stick to its Covid-19 timeframe for nonresponse follow-up, meaning the door-knocking enumeration won’t be rushed, and census takers will have the time they had planned on to be more thorough in reaching people in the hardest-to-count communities.”
After the self-response and door-to-door enumeration deadline passes (whenever that is), the Bureau will switch to other means to complete the count, like using existing administrative records from other agencies, such as the Social Security Administration and state departments of motor vehicles. These are considered to be the least accurate method of counting, and the most likely to miss typically undercounted populations.
Why 2020’s census could be one of the least accurate ever
Between budget cuts, politics, and the pandemic, the 2020 census — an already complex and massive undertaking — has been more difficult to pull off. Experts have been warning for years that the 2020 census is underfunded to the point that it could affect its accuracy. This underfunding predates Trump’s presidency, but Trump hasn’t helped matters.
“We’ve never had a pandemic like this; we’ve never had a political climate this bad,” Romalewski said. “In some ways, it’s impressive that we’ve even gotten to this level. But we know that in 2010, even with a higher self-response rate, there were still problems with the accuracy, the count, as far as certain population groups go. So despite the challenges, we still need to do better.”
Trump was determined to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, the justification for which remained elusive — which was why the Supreme Court struck it down. But Trump’s push for it still discouraged many undocumented immigrants from responding. Their undocumented status could also mean they don’t show up in the administrative records the Bureau will use to fill in the numbers of people who weren’t counted by enumerators or self-responses.
“It really did enormous damage to the trust that people need to have in the Census Bureau in order to participate,” Romalewski said.
The Trump administration is now trying to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census, recently ordering that their numbers not be included when determining congressional apportionments. The final decision on this will likely be determined by the Supreme Court in the coming months.
The pandemic has added several new wrinkles to the already troubled process. Planned in-person events to spread awareness or take census counts — which often focus on hard-to-count areas — have been canceled or replaced with virtual outreach efforts. But those won’t do much for areas with limited or no internet access, which tend to be undercounted in the first place.
Even some of the questionnaire distributions have had to be delayed. Typically, homes that don’t have regular mail delivery — remote or rural communities, including Native American reservations — get their census forms through hand delivery. The pandemic delayed these, which therefore delayed their responses.
People also may be less inclined to open their door and talk to a stranger when census takers come to their homes for nonresponse followups. The Census Bureau has had trouble hiring and retaining census takers due, in part, to their reluctance to be exposed to multitudes of people in the middle of a pandemic (the bureau was already having trouble getting enough workers before the pandemic hit).
The new timing of in-person operations is also not ideal, Lowenthal told Recode. Coming in late summer and early fall puts it in the middle of wildfire and hurricane season — two things that make it difficult to conduct in-person counts in affected locations. And the length of time that has elapsed between the census date of April 1 and the beginning of the in-person counts, as well as the significantly increased movement of people around the country because of the pandemic, may also cause accuracy issues.
“Once the population started to churn because of the pandemic, the Census Bureau faced an unprecedented challenge of trying to count people who have moved from where they could have been residing months ago,” Lowenthal said.
The Census Bureau had planned to compensate for these delays by shifting the deadline for the results from December 31, 2020, to April 30, 2021. But the Senate has so far failed to act to extend the deadline, despite the House passing a bill that included an extension and bipartisan support in the Senate.
While Secretary Ross has said he believes it is possible to have a complete and accurate count by December 31, many experts disagree. Internal Census Bureau emails show its employees have serious concerns, and the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Commerce said in a recent report that the accelerated timeline will likely increase the risk of errors. A report from the American Statistical Association estimated that cutting the response deadline short would mean significantly fewer households will be counted in some states. In other words, the communities that already tend to have the lowest self-response rates are more likely to be inaccurately counted again.
There is one bright spot here: the online self-response system. Leading up to the census, there were concerns that too much traffic at once could cause the site to crash or that it might fall victim to a cybersecurity attack. That doesn’t appear to have happened.
“The majority of people responding to the 2020 census on their own have done so online, the online response has not experienced a single moment of downtime since it opened in March,” the Census Bureau told Recode.
So, why don’t you go ahead and fill yours out now.


vox--2020-10-13--The battle over a Texas order limiting ballot drop-off locations, explained

A federal appeals court said late Monday that Texas can limit the number of ballot drop-off locations to one per county .
The ruling is the latest in a battle over voter access in Texas .
It comes after a federal judge on Friday said the state could not limit the number of ballot drop-off locations in each county to one , saying it disadvantaged older voters and those with disabilities .
But Texas appealed , and now a three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has overruled the lower court , allowing Texas ’ s limitations on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The judges , all three of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump , said the limitations on drop-box locations “ still gives Texas absentee voters many ways to cast their ballots in the November 3 election.
” On October 1 , Republican Gov .
Greg Abbott issued a proclamation that allowed for only one drop-off location in each of Texas ’ s 254 counties , regardless of population or geographic size .
Abbott cited election security as a justification for the order .
But it eliminated multiple drop-off sites available for Texans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the third most populous county in the country and home to the state ’ s biggest city , Houston — had to shut 11 of its 12 drop-off sites .
Abbott ’ s decision immediately drew legal challenges from advocates and voting rights groups , who sued to reinstate the drop-off locations , arguing that Abbott changing procedures in the middle of the election — after people have already started requesting their ballots — put an unreasonable burden on voters and ultimately undermined faith in the electoral process at this late stage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robert Pitman sided with those groups , saying Abbott ’ s order put an undue burden on older voters and voters with disabilities , who make up the majority of absentee voters in Texas .
Pitman wrote that Abbott ’ s restrictions would cause “ absentee voters , if they choose not to return their ballots in person to avoid exposure to Covid-19 , to face the risk that their ballots will not be counted if the USPS is unable to timely deliver their ballot after it ’ s been requested or unable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ These burdens fall disproportionately on voters who are elderly , disabled , or live in larger counties , ” Pitman wrote .
But late on Monday , a higher court decided that Abbott ’ s order could remain in place , overturning Pitman ’ s decision .
“ These methods for remote voting outstrip what Texas law previously permitted in a pre-Covid world .
The October 1 proclamation abridges no one ’ s right to vote , ” the judges wrote .
This battle over Texas drop boxes represents just one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this election season , and one of hundreds of legal challenges over elections across the country .
It ’ s not clear if this is the final decision in this fight , as the plaintiffs are weighing their options .
But this ruling may ultimately make a big difference in how Texans vote in 2020 .
The fight over the Texas drop-off locations , explained The Covid-19 pandemic hit the United States in March , right in the middle of primary season and ahead of a contentious general election .
All states had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whether by adopting additional safety protocols for in-person voting and vote counting , expanding mail-in voting , extending deadlines for ballot counting , or implementing cure processes so voters could fix mistakes on their mail-in ballots .
In Texas , Abbott expanded the state ’ s early in-person voting period by nearly a week ; it will now begin October 13 .
That proclamation also expanded the period when Texas voters could deliver their mail-in ballots in person to the clerk ’ s office .
Previously , voters had only been allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county clerk ’ s office on Election Day .
Voting by mail in Texas is still pretty restricted : Unlike other states , Texas did not loosen its mail-in voting requirements , which only allow people to vote absentee if they are over the age of 65 , have a physical disability or ailment , or are in jail or temporarily out of the county .
Texas Democrats tried to challenge the age rule , but the courts denied the change .
( There have also been other lawsuits around mail-in voting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court blocked Harris County from sending mail-in ballot applications to registered voters . )
So the Texas drop-off locations are strictly for absentee voters to hand-deliver their ballots , offering an alternative for those who do not want to send their ballots through the United States Postal Service because of questions about the USPS ’ s capacity to handle the influx of election ballots this year , or who just want to know , for sure , that their ballots have been received by election officials .
In Democratic-leaning Harris County , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clerk ’ s offices around the county .
The Harris County clerk ’ s office designated the 12th spot , at NRG Arena , as the main drop-off headquarters because , an official told me , it allowed for social distancing and more space to process applications during what was expected to be record election turnout .
Travis County , another blue-leaning area , had four drop-off locations .
But on October 1 , Abbott said , sorry , one drop-off location only .
According to a court filing made on Wednesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ except for Harris County , had ever had multiple drop-off locations before the July 2020 primary .
Abbott ’ s administration claimed having multiple drop-off locations was bad for election security , arguing in a court filing that they provided “ inconsistent safeguards to preserve the integrity of the election , such as a lack of poll watchers overseeing ballot deliveries.
” It also asserted that “ election fraud , specifically vote-by-mail election fraud , has proven to be a frequent and enduring problem in Texas.
” Advocates , however , say this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Each drop-off location is staffed with sworn clerks , and voters must show a valid ID and give their signature at all locations .
“ There was no legitimate justification to reduce the number of ballot drop-off locations , ” Ravi Doshi , senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center , one of the groups bringing a legal challenge , told me last week .
“ That has been said by county election officials , who are the ones that actually administer this election.
” Doshi added that some county clerks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , since the ballots are going directly into the hands of election officials , avoiding the middleman of the USPS , and voters have to provide identification when they drop off their ballot .
Voter fraud in general is rare , and Texas ’ s attempt to investigate voter fraud unraveled after reviews of the citizenship status of voters swept up thousands of legitimate voters .
Abbott has echoed President Donald Trump ’ s false claims about fraud in mail-in voting , but many of the fears he has highlighted — say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else — are highly unlikely to happen at drop-off locations given the ID requirements .
Rather than being about election integrity , voting advocates say Abbott ’ s order was created to disadvantage populous counties by making drop-off sites difficult to access and increasing wait times .
“ It is just plain and simple voter suppression , ” Grace Chimene , president of the League of Women Voters of Texas , one of the groups that joined a lawsuit against Gov .
Abbott , told me last week .
“ There is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter suppression that impacts people with disabilities and elderly voters.
” Harris County , for example , represents about 14 percent of Texas ’ s entire electorate , with 2.4 million registered voters .
Harris and Travis counties — where Houston and Austin are located , respectively — also have large populations of Democratic-leaning voters , including many Black and Latino voters .
Luis Roberto Vera Jr. , national general counsel at the League of United Latin American Citizens ( LULAC ) , another party to the Texas litigation , told me last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly targeting Democratic strongholds , and the many Black and Latino voters in those districts .
They want , he said , “ people who aren ’ t going to vote for Republicans not to cast their vote .
That ’ s all this is designed for.
” The constant changing of the rules and locations is also confusing , complicating attempts by voters to make and execute voting plans .
This , advocates say , is part of the goal : not just to make it more difficult for people to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process so convoluted that it may depress turnout .
“ If you can ’ t find a good rationale based on security , and you can ’ t find a good rationale based on administrative necessity , then what you ’ re left with is the rationale which is , ‘ We ’ re doing this because we believe they ’ ll help us get reelected by ensuring that fewer people are able to cast votes , ’ ” Justin Levitt , a law professor at Loyola Law School and former Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases , told me .
Judge Pitman ultimately agreed with the plaintiffs ’ arguments , that shuttering the drop-off locations would disproportionately burden voters in large population centers who are older or have disabilities .
He also called Abbott ’ s arguments about security a “ pretext , ” finding that Abbott ’ s order did not promote security , since all the drop-off locations follow the same protocol .
But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton quickly appealed the decision to try to stop the judge ’ s order , saying it undermines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the eve of an election and threatens the integrity of the election.
” Late Monday , the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Texas , basically saying that Abbott had already expanded opportunities for voting in the pandemic and that limiting the number of drop-off locations would not hinder Texans ’ right to vote .
“ Normally , if a voter wanted to hand-deliver her mail-in ballot , she would have had only one day to do it—Election Day , ” the judges wrote .
“ Now , under the Governor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballot anytime until Election Day .
That effectively gives voters forty extra days to hand-deliver a marked mail-in ballot to an early voting clerk.
” “ And , ” the judges added , “ the voter still has the traditional option she has always had for casting a mail-in ballot : mailing it.
” Attempts to limit the vote are often done under the guise of guarding against voter fraud , and 2020 is no different .
As in Texas , officials in Pennsylvania , Montana , and New Jersey , among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citing fraud and security on new voting accommodations .
Using allegations of voter fraud to restrict voting isn ’ t new , even if GOP attacks on mail-in voting are outsize in a year when many millions more voters plan to vote by mail — and in an election where the president is currently trailing in many polls .
But what ’ s happening in Texas , and really across the country , has deeper roots .
Changes in voting procedure — particularly changes that could expand the electorate or make it easier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threats to those with easy paths to election and reelection under the status quo .
“ The common element , unfortunately , is incumbents terribly interested in clinging to power and attempting to use their incumbency to rewrite the rules for the election process in a way that changes the electorate , rather than changing hearts and minds of voters , ” Levitt said .
Texas is no different .
Its changing demographics and politics mean the state is trending bluer in a way that could remake the electoral map .
Trump remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic candidate Joe Biden is not far behind , and he ’ s investing money there .
This political context matters for Texas ’ s case .
The state is “ becoming much younger , much more ethnically and racially diverse , and much more urban , ” Brandon Rottinghaus , a professor and expert in Texas politics at the University of Houston , told me .
“ Those voters are more likely to support Democrats.
” Using voting rules to entrench power has historically been a bipartisan exercise , but Republicans are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Republican-controlled legislature has used its power to try to add constraints on how Texans can vote , particularly over the past decade or so .
“ I can definitively say that Texas does not make it easy to vote , ” Rottinghaus said .
“ And it is happening concurrent with massive changes in Texas politics.
” This context helps makes sense of why Texas would attempt to shut drop-off locations in areas where they ’ re needed the most .
But some advocates have argued that the attempt to shut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battles over making it easier to vote in the pandemic , may backfire , motivating voters rather than turning them away .
“ I know that voters really care a lot about this election , ” Chimene , of the League of Women Voters of Texas , said .
“ And they ’ re not going to let anything stand in their way of voting in this election.
” Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little as $ 3 .

A federal appeals court said late Monday that Texas can limit the number of ballot drop-off locations to one per county.
The ruling is the latest in a battle over voter access in Texas. It comes after a federal judge on Friday said the state could not limit the number of ballot drop-off locations in each county to one, saying it disadvantaged older voters and those with disabilities.
But Texas appealed, and now a three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has overruled the lower court, allowing Texas’s limitations on drop-off locations to stay in place. The judges, all three of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump, said the limitations on drop-box locations “still gives Texas absentee voters many ways to cast their ballots in the November 3 election.”
On October 1, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott issued a proclamation that allowed for only one drop-off location in each of Texas’s 254 counties, regardless of population or geographic size. Abbott cited election security as a justification for the order. But it eliminated multiple drop-off sites available for Texans; for instance, Harris County — the third most populous county in the country and home to the state’s biggest city, Houston — had to shut 11 of its 12 drop-off sites.
We’re seeing some wraparound action, but overall the line to drop of absentee ballots in Harris County is moving quickly. Thanks to Gov. Abbott’s proclamation this is now the only drop-off site in the county of more than 4.7 million. I’m live on @MSNBC w/ the latest all day. pic.twitter.com/n2mauqq20A — Priscilla Thompson (@PriscillaWT) October 6, 2020
Abbott’s decision immediately drew legal challenges from advocates and voting rights groups, who sued to reinstate the drop-off locations, arguing that Abbott changing procedures in the middle of the election — after people have already started requesting their ballots — put an unreasonable burden on voters and ultimately undermined faith in the electoral process at this late stage.
On Friday, US District Court Judge Robert Pitman sided with those groups, saying Abbott’s order put an undue burden on older voters and voters with disabilities, who make up the majority of absentee voters in Texas. Pitman wrote that Abbott’s restrictions would cause “absentee voters, if they choose not to return their ballots in person to avoid exposure to Covid-19, to face the risk that their ballots will not be counted if the USPS is unable to timely deliver their ballot after it’s been requested or unable to timely return their completed ballot.”
“These burdens fall disproportionately on voters who are elderly, disabled, or live in larger counties,” Pitman wrote.
But late on Monday, a higher court decided that Abbott’s order could remain in place, overturning Pitman’s decision. “These methods for remote voting outstrip what Texas law previously permitted in a pre-Covid world. The October 1 proclamation abridges no one’s right to vote,” the judges wrote.
This battle over Texas drop boxes represents just one of the fights over voting in the state this election season, and one of hundreds of legal challenges over elections across the country.
It’s not clear if this is the final decision in this fight, as the plaintiffs are weighing their options. But this ruling may ultimately make a big difference in how Texans vote in 2020.
The fight over the Texas drop-off locations, explained
The Covid-19 pandemic hit the United States in March, right in the middle of primary season and ahead of a contentious general election. All states had to consider the administration of their elections, whether by adopting additional safety protocols for in-person voting and vote counting, expanding mail-in voting, extending deadlines for ballot counting, or implementing cure processes so voters could fix mistakes on their mail-in ballots.
In Texas, Abbott expanded the state’s early in-person voting period by nearly a week; it will now begin October 13. That proclamation also expanded the period when Texas voters could deliver their mail-in ballots in person to the clerk’s office. Previously, voters had only been allowed to drop off mail-in ballots to the county clerk’s office on Election Day.
Voting by mail in Texas is still pretty restricted: Unlike other states, Texas did not loosen its mail-in voting requirements, which only allow people to vote absentee if they are over the age of 65, have a physical disability or ailment, or are in jail or temporarily out of the county. Texas Democrats tried to challenge the age rule, but the courts denied the change. (There have also been other lawsuits around mail-in voting, including a recent one where the Texas Supreme Court blocked Harris County from sending mail-in ballot applications to registered voters.)
So the Texas drop-off locations are strictly for absentee voters to hand-deliver their ballots, offering an alternative for those who do not want to send their ballots through the United States Postal Service because of questions about the USPS’s capacity to handle the influx of election ballots this year, or who just want to know, for sure, that their ballots have been received by election officials.
In Democratic-leaning Harris County, for example, 11 drop-off locations were clerk’s offices around the county. The Harris County clerk’s office designated the 12th spot, at NRG Arena, as the main drop-off headquarters because, an official told me, it allowed for social distancing and more space to process applications during what was expected to be record election turnout. Travis County, another blue-leaning area, had four drop-off locations.
But on October 1, Abbott said, sorry, one drop-off location only. According to a court filing made on Wednesday, Abbott argued that no Texas counties, except for Harris County, had ever had multiple drop-off locations before the July 2020 primary.
Abbott’s administration claimed having multiple drop-off locations was bad for election security, arguing in a court filing that they provided “inconsistent safeguards to preserve the integrity of the election, such as a lack of poll watchers overseeing ballot deliveries.” It also asserted that “election fraud, specifically vote-by-mail election fraud, has proven to be a frequent and enduring problem in Texas.”
Advocates, however, say this security argument is not grounded in reality. Each drop-off location is staffed with sworn clerks, and voters must show a valid ID and give their signature at all locations.
“There was no legitimate justification to reduce the number of ballot drop-off locations,” Ravi Doshi, senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, one of the groups bringing a legal challenge, told me last week. “That has been said by county election officials, who are the ones that actually administer this election.”
Doshi added that some county clerks see the drop-off locations as more secure, since the ballots are going directly into the hands of election officials, avoiding the middleman of the USPS, and voters have to provide identification when they drop off their ballot.
Voter fraud in general is rare, and Texas’s attempt to investigate voter fraud unraveled after reviews of the citizenship status of voters swept up thousands of legitimate voters. Abbott has echoed President Donald Trump’s false claims about fraud in mail-in voting, but many of the fears he has highlighted — say, someone filling out a ballot for someone else — are highly unlikely to happen at drop-off locations given the ID requirements.
Rather than being about election integrity, voting advocates say Abbott’s order was created to disadvantage populous counties by making drop-off sites difficult to access and increasing wait times.
“It is just plain and simple voter suppression,” Grace Chimene, president of the League of Women Voters of Texas, one of the groups that joined a lawsuit against Gov. Abbott, told me last week. “There is no other word — and it’s voter suppression that impacts people with disabilities and elderly voters.”
Harris County, for example, represents about 14 percent of Texas’s entire electorate, with 2.4 million registered voters. Harris and Travis counties — where Houston and Austin are located, respectively — also have large populations of Democratic-leaning voters, including many Black and Latino voters.
Luis Roberto Vera Jr., national general counsel at the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), another party to the Texas litigation, told me last week that Abbott’s order is directly targeting Democratic strongholds, and the many Black and Latino voters in those districts. They want, he said, “people who aren’t going to vote for Republicans not to cast their vote. That’s all this is designed for.”
The constant changing of the rules and locations is also confusing, complicating attempts by voters to make and execute voting plans. This, advocates say, is part of the goal: not just to make it more difficult for people to vote by eliminating locations, but to make the process so convoluted that it may depress turnout.
“If you can’t find a good rationale based on security, and you can’t find a good rationale based on administrative necessity, then what you’re left with is the rationale which is, ‘We’re doing this because we believe they’ll help us get reelected by ensuring that fewer people are able to cast votes,’” Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Law School and former Justice Department official who worked on voting rights cases, told me.
Judge Pitman ultimately agreed with the plaintiffs’ arguments, that shuttering the drop-off locations would disproportionately burden voters in large population centers who are older or have disabilities. He also called Abbott’s arguments about security a “pretext,” finding that Abbott’s order did not promote security, since all the drop-off locations follow the same protocol.
But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton quickly appealed the decision to try to stop the judge’s order, saying it undermines election security and “creates confusion on the eve of an election and threatens the integrity of the election.”
Late Monday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Texas, basically saying that Abbott had already expanded opportunities for voting in the pandemic and that limiting the number of drop-off locations would not hinder Texans’ right to vote.
“Normally, if a voter wanted to hand-deliver her mail-in ballot, she would have had only one day to do it—Election Day,” the judges wrote. “Now, under the Governor’s expanded policy, she can deliver the ballot anytime until Election Day. That effectively gives voters forty extra days to hand-deliver a marked mail-in ballot to an early voting clerk.”
“And,” the judges added, “the voter still has the traditional option she has always had for casting a mail-in ballot: mailing it.”
Texas, a battleground
Attempts to limit the vote are often done under the guise of guarding against voter fraud, and 2020 is no different. As in Texas, officials in Pennsylvania, Montana, and New Jersey, among other states, have faced legal challenges citing fraud and security on new voting accommodations.
Using allegations of voter fraud to restrict voting isn’t new, even if GOP attacks on mail-in voting are outsize in a year when many millions more voters plan to vote by mail — and in an election where the president is currently trailing in many polls.
But what’s happening in Texas, and really across the country, has deeper roots. Changes in voting procedure — particularly changes that could expand the electorate or make it easier to vote — are often seen as threats to those with easy paths to election and reelection under the status quo.
“The common element, unfortunately, is incumbents terribly interested in clinging to power and attempting to use their incumbency to rewrite the rules for the election process in a way that changes the electorate, rather than changing hearts and minds of voters,” Levitt said.
Texas is no different. Its changing demographics and politics mean the state is trending bluer in a way that could remake the electoral map. Trump remains ahead in most Texas polls, but Democratic candidate Joe Biden is not far behind, and he’s investing money there.
This political context matters for Texas’s case. The state is “becoming much younger, much more ethnically and racially diverse, and much more urban,” Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor and expert in Texas politics at the University of Houston, told me. “Those voters are more likely to support Democrats.”
Using voting rules to entrench power has historically been a bipartisan exercise, but Republicans are upholding that legacy in Texas right now. The Republican-controlled legislature has used its power to try to add constraints on how Texans can vote, particularly over the past decade or so. “I can definitively say that Texas does not make it easy to vote,” Rottinghaus said. “And it is happening concurrent with massive changes in Texas politics.”
This context helps makes sense of why Texas would attempt to shut drop-off locations in areas where they’re needed the most. But some advocates have argued that the attempt to shut down the drop-off locations, and other battles over making it easier to vote in the pandemic, may backfire, motivating voters rather than turning them away.
“I know that voters really care a lot about this election,” Chimene, of the League of Women Voters of Texas, said. “And they’re not going to let anything stand in their way of voting in this election.”


vox--2020-10-13--The Supreme Court just let the Trump administration shut down the census early

The Supreme Court handed down a brief , unsigned order on Tuesday that is likely to shut down the 2020 census count .
Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented publicly from the Court ’ s order in Ross v. National Urban League , although it is possible that as many as two other justices dissented without making that dissent public .
The case involves a late effort by political appointees to shut down the census count earlier than professionals within the Census Bureau determined that that count can be completed during a pandemic .
The practical impact of the Court ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including people of color , low-income individuals , and those who live on tribal lands — are especially likely to go uncounted .
As Sotomayor explains in her dissenting opinion , the census count was originally supposed to end on July 31 , but the Census Bureau decided to extend that date until October 31 due to the Covid-19 pandemic .
As one high-ranking bureau official explained , “ It was ‘ ludicrous ’ to expect the Bureau to ‘ complete 100 percent of the nation ’ s data collection earlier than [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a pandemic.
” For several months , political appointees within the Trump administration supported this decision .
They even backed legislation that would have extended the December 31 deadline for the Census Bureau to report the full results of the 2020 census to President Trump .
But in early August , Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross abruptly changed course .
He announced that the census count would end on September 30 , and the administration stopped lobbying Congress to extend the December deadline .
In response to these developments , a lower federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counting individuals until October 31 — the date when the count would have ended if Ross hadn ’ t intervened to shut down the count in September .
Now that Ross is no longer bound by this order , he can call a halt to the census count .
The Court ’ s order halting the census count is consistent with its laissez-faire approach to voting rights The Court ’ s one-paragraph order offers no explanation of why a majority of the justices chose to end the count .
It doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this litigation .
Rather , the Court ’ s order ending the count merely stays the lower court ’ s order while this case is fully considered by an appeals court and then potentially appealed to the justices again .
As a practical matter , however , the Court ’ s order in Ross is likely the final word on the census count .
By the time this case is fully litigated in the appeals court ( and potentially in the Supreme Court ) , the census will almost certainly be over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet , while the Court does not explain its decision , said decision is not particularly surprising .
The Supreme Court ’ s Republican majority has largely called upon the federal judiciary to defer to other government officials in cases asking how the government should respond to the pandemic .
And the Court ’ s majority has shown particular indifference towards voting rights .
As Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained in a recent voting rights opinion , courts should typically defer to “ a State legislature ’ s decision either to keep or to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID–19.
” A similar logic could also apply to a federal Cabinet secretary ’ s decision about how the census should adapt during a pandemic .
And , make no mistake , Ross is a voting rights case .
The census doesn ’ t simply determine how federal resources are allocated ; it also determines how congressional representation and Electoral College votes are allocated among the states .
As Sotomayor explains in dissent , “ the percentage of nonresponses ” during a census “ is likely much higher among marginalized populations and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tribal lands.
” So the Court ’ s order in Ross is likely to transfer power away from marginalized communities ( that often vote for Democrats over Republicans ) , and toward wealthier and whiter communities ( that are more likely to support Republicans ) .
If the Trump administration can be believed — and the Supreme Court has caught the administration lying about the census in the past — the impact of the decision in Ross is likely to be marginal .
The administration , Sotomayor notes , claims that “ over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are already accounted for ” in the current census count .
But even if the administration is telling the truth , Sotomayor continues , “ a fraction of a percent of the Nation ’ s 140 million households amounts to hundreds of thousands of people left uncounted.
” And these households are likely to be disproportionately lower-income and less white than the people who are counted .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 3 .

The Supreme Court handed down a brief, unsigned order on Tuesday that is likely to shut down the 2020 census count. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented publicly from the Court’s order in Ross v. National Urban League, although it is possible that as many as two other justices dissented without making that dissent public.
The case involves a late effort by political appointees to shut down the census count earlier than professionals within the Census Bureau determined that that count can be completed during a pandemic. The practical impact of the Court’s decision is that marginalized groups — including people of color, low-income individuals, and those who live on tribal lands — are especially likely to go uncounted.
As Sotomayor explains in her dissenting opinion, the census count was originally supposed to end on July 31, but the Census Bureau decided to extend that date until October 31 due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
As one high-ranking bureau official explained, “It was ‘ludicrous’ to expect the Bureau to ‘complete 100 percent of the nation’s data collection earlier than [October 31]’ in the middle of a pandemic.”
For several months, political appointees within the Trump administration supported this decision. They even backed legislation that would have extended the December 31 deadline for the Census Bureau to report the full results of the 2020 census to President Trump. But in early August, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross abruptly changed course. He announced that the census count would end on September 30, and the administration stopped lobbying Congress to extend the December deadline.
In response to these developments, a lower federal court ordered the Census Bureau to continue counting individuals until October 31 — the date when the count would have ended if Ross hadn’t intervened to shut down the count in September. Now that Ross is no longer bound by this order, he can call a halt to the census count.
The Court’s order halting the census count is consistent with its laissez-faire approach to voting rights
The Court’s one-paragraph order offers no explanation of why a majority of the justices chose to end the count. It doesn’t even purport to be the final word in this litigation. Rather, the Court’s order ending the count merely stays the lower court’s order while this case is fully considered by an appeals court and then potentially appealed to the justices again.
As a practical matter, however, the Court’s order in Ross is likely the final word on the census count. By the time this case is fully litigated in the appeals court (and potentially in the Supreme Court), the census will almost certainly be over and the case will be moot.
Yet, while the Court does not explain its decision, said decision is not particularly surprising. The Supreme Court’s Republican majority has largely called upon the federal judiciary to defer to other government officials in cases asking how the government should respond to the pandemic. And the Court’s majority has shown particular indifference towards voting rights.
As Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained in a recent voting rights opinion, courts should typically defer to “a State legislature’s decision either to keep or to make changes to election rules to address COVID–19.” A similar logic could also apply to a federal Cabinet secretary’s decision about how the census should adapt during a pandemic.
And, make no mistake, Ross is a voting rights case. The census doesn’t simply determine how federal resources are allocated; it also determines how congressional representation and Electoral College votes are allocated among the states. As Sotomayor explains in dissent, “the percentage of nonresponses” during a census “is likely much higher among marginalized populations and in hard-to-count areas, such as rural and tribal lands.”
So the Court’s order in Ross is likely to transfer power away from marginalized communities (that often vote for Democrats over Republicans), and toward wealthier and whiter communities (that are more likely to support Republicans).
If the Trump administration can be believed — and the Supreme Court has caught the administration lying about the census in the past — the impact of the decision in Ross is likely to be marginal. The administration, Sotomayor notes, claims that “over 99 percent of households in 49 States are already accounted for” in the current census count.
But even if the administration is telling the truth, Sotomayor continues, “a fraction of a percent of the Nation’s 140 million households amounts to hundreds of thousands of people left uncounted.” And these households are likely to be disproportionately lower-income and less white than the people who are counted.