Our thoughts are with him, of course. I mentioned our moderator, stewart taylor, authorjournalist in washington, d. C. , somewhat of a federal society regular. You might have seen him before. I want to thank him for his role as a moderator here today. Stewart. [ applause ] thank you very much, dean. Thank you for coming. Welcome to the Federalist Societys Panel Discussion titled citizenship with the road ahead. It was initially titled citizenship. I said, yeah, what else . Anyhow, its now citizenship, the road ahead on issues surrounding the Trump Administrations ongoing effort to direct and make publicly available more information the numbers of citizens, noncitizens and Illegal Immigrants in the country. This effort includes the administrations plan to include a question about citizenship and the census. Now, starting in the year 2030, that is because the Supreme Courts june 27 decision and the department of commerce versus new york made it logistically impossible, in the attorney generals words to include the question in the 2020 census. We have three expert panelists to my left. John s. Baker, Professor Emeritus at the university of state he better law center and chairman of our citizenship counts, a group of scholars and other interested people. He has taught and lectured at other universities in the United States involved and taught at various bodies. A constitutional appellate in washington law in washington, d. C. He served in the White House Counsels Office and department of justice during the reagan and George H Bush administrations and also contributor to the wall street journal. W. Egelston at the far end is a law partner. His Service Includes white House Counsel for president obama, 20142017, associate counsel for president clinton, 1993 to 1994 and deputy chief counsel for the house Iran Contra Committee from 1997 to 1988. Our format is as follows. John will take about three minutes to introduce the topic and say what this is all about. Then, he first, and then david and then neil will make Opening Statements all from the podium, of six minutes each. After the Opening Statements, i will ask questions of the panelists and they will exchange views with one another until about 1 30. I will then invite members of the audience to join in the questioning. We will stop at 2 00 p. M. If not before. John, please proceed. Thank you, stewart and thank you, david and neil for joining us here today. My introduction is going to be geared to the home audience on cspan. That means as much as responsible i will attempt to eliminate legalees. Our constitution requires quote and enumration every 10 years. We otherwise know that as the census. This is all about the upcoming 2020 census. Every 10 years, there is a great deal of controversy about the census. Goes all the way back to the beginning when George Washington thought there was an undercount. This always seems to come up. The count. Why . The constitutional purpose is for the allocation of seats in the u. S. House of representatives, which in turn affects the Electoral College votes. But theres Something Else driving the train. That is that congress has freighted this with the distribution of money. Often, the distribution of money is far more important to those who are concerned about money. So, virtually every 10 years we get litigation about the census. In fact, last time around, david riff ken and i, not suing for money but suing for representation in the state of louisiana, which lost a seat due to the way we thought it shouldnt have been counted. Anyway, you can be sure that the litigation over the census is not over. It will continue for quite a while. Okay. In this case, the case that went to the Supreme Court, came from a new york federal court. There was another case in maryland as well, but the main case was in new york. The issue is, could the secretary of commerce, wilbur ross, add the question, are you a citizen, to the census. That was the question. How could that be controversial . There were a number of legal arguments made. Essentially, what was at issue was a strike move, in terms of litigation, which is all too complicated for our home audience. Needless to say, the case went up to the Supreme Court back in november of last year. Then, it came back for a decision of the merits on the last day of the term, when the Supreme Court left town. They always drop the bombs right before they leave town, and they did that again. In the case itself, you had new york, california, a number of states, mayors, counties, at least 184 nonprofit groups suing. And making various claims about enumeration about whats called the procedures act and calmed ultimately protection. The decision comes down on the administrative procedures act. A very boring topic. The topic continues and after that the president responded by saying, we will count citizens. The question was, how do you do that . The Justice Department was facing the issue that the ballot not ballots, documents need to go to printing basically july 1. There was the struggle over how to deal with this, because the Supreme Court, in a decision that only a law professor could love, had such a convoluted result, it said, on the one hand, yes, normally, the secretary of commerce, who overseas the Census Bureau, could add this question. He didnt give the proper justification. They didnt say theoretically it wasnt possible for them to go back down to the lower court and come back again with a different reason, but the clock was running. There was sure to be plenty of litigation, because there had already been plenty of litigation. This was a decision in which only one justice, chief Justice Roberts, had the entire opinion. There were four on one side that agreed with him, yes, you could ask the question, there were four on one side that said, no, you cant ask the question right now, based on what you told us. Thats why it was so confusing to so many people. Thats the end . It is. Now, you have six minutes. Now, hes going to time me. To make your argumentative remarks, i call them that. After President Trump announced we would ask the Citizenship Question, anyway, there was a lot of back and forth, as would normally be the case between lawyers and the white house, Justice Department, Commerce Department, all of this is going on. Finally, they realized as if they probably knew ahead of time, as a practical matter, you wont be able to ask the question. There is not time to go back to the court and litigate this thing all the way up. This wasnt going to happen. Many people who werent deeply involved in the issue said at the end, its over they thought, you know, there will be no citizenship information. Wrong on both counts. Its not over. Its not over. Why . What secretary ros did was to find out in the process critical information. What was that information . Well, the people on the Census Bureau were opposed, from the beginning to his proposal. They offered every other kind of way to get the information. What they revealed was they already had 88 of the information, which came as a surprise to many people. What they said was, we will have both the question and what are called the administrative records. Why not just the administrative records . They werent complete at the time. That was the critical part, not complete. So, what happens after that . What happens after that is that when the case comes back, it is now Going Forward on the basis that was argued by the staff that was resisting secretary ross. So, now, in a way theyve got what they wanted but they didnt get what they want. Why . The big problem for ross and the department was you have to negotiator with the other departments to get the information that was lacking. Without that information you wouldnt have a complete picture of citizens versus aliens. The key in the president s executive order is that he orders the completion of those records and that the departments cooperate with the Commerce Department to give them this information. That means if all that information that information comes out about a year from now basically, we will know how many citizens and noncitizens, primarily aliens, but there are noncitizens a permanent illegal resident, not just about illegal aliens. There are all kinds of foreign students, Embassy Staff and other people who are counted in the census and represented in your congress. Very few people even know that. Whats the take away . It was not a waste of time for seconds ro seconds secretary ross to do what he did. He opened a pile of information bureaucrats knew about but politicals didnt know about. It was probably accidental that they gave them the information. We all ought to be very thankful to secretary ross for what hes done. The other things in the executive order is it notes the 2016 case, evanwell, left open the question whether states could redistrict state legislative districts based on total population or voter population. You can guarantee that will be a litigated issue and this issue coming from the Commerce Department will be essential to that. The other issue is a lawsuit brought by the state of alabama, because they anticipate they will lose a congressional seat because of the counting of aliens in the redistribution of seats. This is the case that david nye litigated back 10 years ago regarding louisiana. We didnt get very far fortunately. Within my six minutes . Yes. You had another minute. Oh, i do . Thats never happened to me before. Why is this important . One of the things secretary ross discovered, when they got the administrative records, they matched those against the Citizenship Question on the American Community survey. What happened over the years, the Citizenship Question migrated over to this other form. This form is sent out on a rolling basis but only to 3. 5 Million People. When that question is asked, it turns out when you compare the administrative records, there is somewhere between 28 and 30 false answers. People claiming to be citizens who are not citizens. Ah. The Census Bureau estimated back in 2012, there were between 11 and 12 million illegal aliens in the country. Their numbers were based on a false estimate of the false responses. Based on the new information, it is very likely there is at least double that amount, or at least 25 million, not 11 or 12 million. The number is false. Interestly of this, there was a yale study that came outside mentioned in the executive order mentions there is somewhere between 16 and 29 million illegal aliens in the country. This is for the the American People deserve to have. Thank you very much. [ applause ] david. Probably in the interest of time, ill remain seated. Ill be very brief since my good friend and colleague, professor baker, laid out the big picture here. This appears to be one of those issues unfortunately gets tied up in politics as almost everything these days. Its not surprising but a little depressing, as pointed out, this has been a continuous feature in the census context from the beginning of our republic in 1950, as john put it, discretion migrated to a sample of the forms. Up until recently, i cannot imagine nib would have seriously argued this information cannot be collected, leaving aside all their administrative procedures act aside. I would say, i certainly agree with the dissent in the new york case by the four justices. Unfortunately without the chief, otherwise, it would have been a majority opinion, while this rule making was untidy, it does not constitute an admission. And the justice points out his separate dissent, given the language, it was pretty much to the discretion and there information not renewable judicially at all. There are other alternative ways to go forward. Were probably done as far as putting an actual Citizenship Question on the census forms for the purposes of 2020, somewhat regrettable in my opinion but the bureaucratic constitutionalities on the timeline professor baker described. I would like to see if we can resolve this question in a more fundamental level, whether or not it is legitimate to ask such a question. In the second, its not only legitimate, constitutionally compelled. I would like to see this administration put forward this question of the 2030 census. They say, thats crazy, many years left between now and 2030, when you have Administrative Law and legal impairment that prevents an agency from structure and rule making, lays out, how to attack a given issue. When a p. A. Says, how will we approach the certain types of issues that go into arise risk assessments. And the way is to have the executive order that would direct the secretary of commerce and specifically the Census Bureau to engage in the rule making, pretty abbreviated rule making how they will proceed in the 2030 census, so we dont need to be dealing with those issues. Id like to say maybe the environment would moderate by that time but that would be probably an unduly optimistic view. Why do i think, a fairly new argument, a lot has been put on the table, why do i think asking the question about citizenship is not only constitutional lly permitble. We have five justices who said that in the new york case. Why its constitutionally compelled, straightforward, look at section two of the 14th amendment. Post civil war amendments makes clear one of the ways in insuring states did not abridge suffrage improperly, which is to say denied the right of eligible citizens to vote, in addition to language in section 1 that provides the basis to prohibit any state practices that engage in discrimination. Section 2 says if you actually do that, it talks about male citizens, 21 years old. Thats not a criticism. Ive gotten criticisms along those lines because thats the baseline at that point was basically changed. You will diminish your representation in the house and presumably, Electoral College by the same percent. If you prevent 10 of citizens from voting, you lose 10 representation in the house. The whole math makers no sense unless your house representations are based on the citizenship baseline and not everybody present here. Ive gotten some criticism of this, i think is essentially untenable but we may be able to tackle it, in excluding the language, this the constitution does not go out of style and the 14th amendment is the crown jewel of most of our civil rights. Section 1 in particular and section 2 should be given equal right. The Supreme Court has dealt with the liability of section 2 once in the not too distant past. We can go forward and on the merits and not worry about apa and set the process in place for the 2030 census. Thank you. [ applause ] thank you very much, david. Neil, feel free to sit or stand, as you prefer. I think im the only lazy one now. No thank you, neil. Thank you. Once professor baker got up, i figured i pretty much had to, to represent my side. Let me have a few comments i want to make about this, which is what mr. Riff ken asked the question, why would anybody object to a Citizenship Question. Doesnt that seem pretty obvious and the kind of thing you want to know the answer to . The difference is the constitutional provision about enumeration only talks about counting people in the country. A practice developed about asking additional questions the government for other reasons thought it would be useful to know the answer to. In 1950, they decided there were so many questions being asked actually counting the people in the country was starting to become a problem. They cut way back and referenced in the chief justices opinion. The issue this became a problem about, particularly experts at the Census Bureau and a number of places, particularly experts at the Census Bureau web particularly in this environment, i dont think the chief justice does enough with it. In this environment, this president announcing, there will be massive raised to take people out of the country, i think that raid resulted in arrest beiing people, by the way. It would interfere with the constitution requirement to count the number of people in the country. Thats what this whole dispute is about. The constitutional provision is count the number of people, not the answer larry questions people have decided. Since were going to ask questions every 10 years, why dont we throw others on, which has been pretty common. Lets make a couple of comments. Chief Justice Roberts has come under a lot of criticism for the decision he rendered in this case. A lot of people, including me, think of him as an institutionist. And a lot of you lawyers here think bad facts make bad law and bad cases. The problem was essentially that secretary ross had given testimony under oath about where this Citizenship Question came from. He described it was asked of him by the department of justice and theyre the ones who really wanted it. As the facts came forward that turned out not to be true, almost shockingly not true, not to overstate this, i think hes probably hoping President Trump is reelected so the statute of limitations is run on the truthfulness of his testimony under oath in congress. It was pretty shockingly in true and caused interest. In a week or two, more evidence came out, and i think the chief justice decided if the facts were going to get worse on this issue, although he has a whole section of the opinion about deference and significant deference and we will probably come back to this, at least on this question he was not willing to defer because he called the decision by secretary ross contrived. Made it quite clear he didnt believe the decision. Well probably come back to this. One thing to defer but another thing to defer the decision the courts have decided it was not the decision the decisionmaker was really making. Let me make one or two other points before i get my notes. I think this section two in the 14th amendment, ive been struggling with the right word. Maybe i will stay with farfetched. Remember, the 14th amendment did not provide africanamericans can vote. Thats the 15th amendment. The way the 14th amendment dealt with this issue, states, you do whatever you want but anyone over the age of 18 you want will be proportioned by how many people have been deprived of the right to vote. Thats what it really was intended to do. You think about it, this was a remedy in the event a state has found to have deprived votes to a significant percentage of its population. It hasnt happened. It didnt even happen in reconstruction. In reconstruction, the state did not deny the right to vote to africanamericans, what they did was put into plaefrs various place various barriers. It did not happen. I cant imagine there is a state contemplating the right to vote to citizens now over the age of 18, interesting constitution whether the male over 21 survived and those who did not. The notion mr. Rifften would do is go straight to it, even if it was maine was going to do that with every population. The problem is it will not happen. To me, this is a pretext that would make even secretary robsz blush. I think Justice Tomas does a fair amount of this. This is a fascinating place where these cases collide. Which is the notion of presumption of regularity, a concept that typically applies to administrations and president s. I think what a number of the cases that weve seen in the travel ban case, in favor of the administration. In this case, it went against the administration. Its a presumption question. The military transgender case coming up. Interesting to see what happens in those situations. As professor goldstein has said from time to time at at harvard its interesting this is an administration where the president actually says what he thinks and then the lawyers are left to clean up, you know, the battlefield after wards. I think we continue to see this issue play out in a series of cases. We have seen it in two and we have more to come. Anyway, thank you very much. [ applause ] im going to ask questions to the panelists in the order in which they spoke and then after the first panelist addresses a question the others should feel free to. David, would you like to take a few seconds before i start that to respond on section 2 of the 14th amendment . Sure. I i heard the same arguments made by a lot of law professors, neil made them to for in but it was untenable for a variety of reasons. One is yes i understand what the 15th amendment does what section 1 of the 14th amendment but does not vitiate section 2 its not a question of remedy. If you look at the language of the section it specifically talks about abridging not the right of suffrage to residents because all residents do not have a right of suffrage the. Were talking about citizen a male citizens citizens are baseline. You cannot possibly be in the position to do that which has to be done on a situation where a violation occurs whereby having a decision of numbers. Dont take my word for it the section is viable. An interesting detail. Section 2 specifically allows you to deny suffrage to folks, defy or abridge folks guilty of participation in the rebellion or of a crime. At 74 the Supreme Court considered this issue in the case that i mentioned in my oped piece called theed richardson versus ramirez, a 63 decision by chief justice rehnquist. The question there was there are citizens including in california, amazingly enough that are abridged their rights and theyre called former felons. And you had people bring a challenge to that policy claiming that it violated what, an aelg protection claus of what . Of section 1 of the 14th amendment. Six justices of the Supreme Court rejected this and in the process of rejecting the challenge basically said that, look, something thats expressly allowed by section 2 cannot possibly violate section 1. Otherwise you assume the framers wrote the 14th amendment as it were of itself. Buts are importantly enough in the process any decisively rejected the argument made by the three dissenting justices that section 2 was somehow archaic and underutilized and political afterthought. Ill read you once jonas np nor can we accept the apprehension that because section 2 is made part of the amendment largely for incident of political exitojety dlaern lib rakes we must not look to it for guidance in interpreting. It is as much part of the amendment as any of the other conclusion sections and how it became part of the amendment is less important for what it says or what it means. 63 decision ladies and gentlemen pretty modern. Thank you, david. Question for you in the first instance, john. And i gather there may be a problem with the microphone. See if its working. Mine. No, johns. President trump said in announceding the executive order and july 12th quote some states may want to draw state and local legislative districts based upon the voter eligible population, end quote. The New York Times characterized this as the clearest statement yet that his administrations ultimate goal in obtaining data on citizenship was to eliminate Illegal Immigrants and other noncitizens from the population base used to draw political boundaries, a longstanding dream in some republican circles. Is this, john, the actual reason or the main reason do you think behind the whole effort to add the citizenship to the question i remember the Citizenship Question to the census . Well, i cant speak to what President Trump was thinking or not. I know what david and i did ten years ago. It seems to me preposterrous that you would count not only aliens whether they are here legally or illegally but that you would count members of Embassy Staffs. The Census Bureau says we count everybody but tourists. In the last census they counted a guy in a deportation jail. And he was being deported that day. These are statisticishens gone wild process. In an upcoming oped ill have they have denied the concept of citizenship which ill explain later thp they dont understand the constitution and they may have lawyers who doesnt understand it. For instance, neil and the Census Bureau use the wrong terminology and when it comes to the constitution, now, terminology is destiny. Its everything. So they say the ee newholm ration claus requires the counting of all people. No, it doesnt. It it requires the counting of numbers. Numbers why would they say number sns. The word numbers was an i abrechgs of the last draft of number of inhabitants. In the last draft merely stylistic was not to change what they had agreed to. And the first census and others used count the number of inhabitants. And if you go to this 14th amendment as david was talking about, in that same section 2 after it talks about respective numbers, then it goes to male inhabitants. Well, back then most inhabitants were here legally. And they werent going back to europe any time soon. There wasnt plane service. The issue of who is an inhabitant is critical. Legal inhabitants are not foreign students. Legal inhabitants are not Embassy Staffs. Legal inhabitants are not aliens who parked themselves here. Theyre not legally inhabiting the United States. Thats the issue. David, question. If i can just add one second, there is actually in addition to points that john made, there was an original public meaning if you look at the british practice that goes back maybe 100 years before the founding, that define what an inhabitant meant in the context of, again, the british practice. And its somebody who had appropriate ties to the Political Community in which that person could reside. And i mean, i dont have time but actually it had to do with welfare. Because different counties in britain were not interested in having neighboring county dump on them people who needed public support. So the framers understood very well what inhabitants meant. And it is just but, look, to me, thats something that remains to be litigated in the post world. I happen to think litigation would come out a certain way. Others may disagree maybe neil disagree was me but the notion that we cant get the numbers to me is question to neil would it be good idea tor bad to draw districts based on voter population as justice trump im sorry. President trump suggested maybe that would be a good idea and also would to be constitutional to do that . So i think that people talked about the case from a couple of years ago when the issue was addressed. So so i agree with mr. Riskin a lot of it has to be litigated to respond previa briefly to mr. Rivkin people in the country has been the standard which the census has been taken for census after census after census. This is another new argument thats part of a political argument. I get that. Thats fine. Its obviously mr. Rivkin said thats going to end up being litigated. But if as chief Justice Roberts said in his opinion upholding the census question on the apa side, if History Matters then history ought to matter upon however you think about it. But youve asked me a slightly different question, stewart, which is sort of the policy question, i think is it a good idea or bad idea . I think its probably a bad idea. There are representatives represent people in their districts. Regardless of why they are there. And so i think its probably from a policy viewpoint a bad idea. But thats sort of my analysis of that. And i know others have a term of view and i know its a pretty strong argument point by by conservatives. And i i suspect that our other two panelists may want to speak to that question specifically. Good idea or bad idea, and constitutional or unconstitutional to count only eligible voters in terms of directing in in state and local directing . Federal is a dirp question i think. I would say the following. Its kind of interesting because neil mentioned in the context of the argument that having this question on the census on short forms would depress the Response Rates. He pointed out that you know obvious weve been doing it since 1950 so what everything ha habs has been unconstitutional practice prior to that no, he quite carefully cabined the fact situation by pointing out because its because of trumps characteristics. We have to apply to the situation whats the baseline they use . Look, for most of our history everybody in the country was legal because congress did not pass an elaborate immigration statutes that said that some people can come in and some people cant. During that period of our history, everybody was present here were indeed inhabitants. Should have been counted. That changed, of course. That changed in modern times. But, again, the question on the table is not whether or not you cannot answer the question however you should count people who are not citizens but about looking at the kind of asymmetries and numbers we have. I would say this, i wonder why neil thinks that thats okay to have wide asymmetries in distribution of illegal aliens who tend to favor states like california who tremendously augments forget about the benefits they receive from federal largesse but in terms of political power one of the great issues at the founding was how to balance the power of different starts. Large, small states. With more time we can talk about virginia plan and connecticut plan and all the debates about why we need bi karm ral legislative appear two senators. But lerpgts were concerned about the representation in the house and the Electoral College. And in a situation where you have dramatic swings where states like louisiana or alabama and ohio are losing seats and california is gaining seats largely because they are losing quite a bit of citizen population going to places like arizona they are using seats because of illegal aliens and they also have making themselves attractive to illegal aliens. Which again is you know in re policy choice. But i would submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, there is something fundamentally wrong from a structural separation of powers perspective when we have now a mechanism where one group of states can artificially inflate their fikt political power at the expense of other states. That question has never been considered by the Supreme Court. The context for question of whether or not you count eligible citizens or people has been in the context of one person one vote, which is an important issue. But its never been debated in the context of structural separation of powers. And thats, again, new. It did not exist by and large for a long period in our history. And then for many decades there after it wasnt that important. But if john baker is right and we are talking about a baseline of 15, 18, 20 Million People who are distributed very asymmetrically. Again if they were sprinkle throughout the states wouldnt make a difference tp distributed very asymmetrically that puts structural stress on separation of powers which is the a core element of the constitutional architecture. I dont know how one takes it off the table. So stewart may i respond. Go ahead, sure. As Justice Kegan said we are all text youllists now and if the question is about apportionment among the states i think the constitution which is not a policy document that we get to decide we dont really like anymore without amending it says in section 2 representative shall be apportioned among the several states according to respective numbers counting the whole number of persons in each state. Counting the whole number of persons in each state. It was the whole number was designed to get rid of the three fichgts provision in the constitution before. The issue about apportioning state and local legislative districts and the like. That is open under the constitution. I would argue that light of the explicit language of the constitution which are which we are not allowed to decide we dont like today this issue has been resolved. Thats the reason i think thats where we are on this question. I recognize on the state and local question thats not resolved by this. And i expect as i say there was a case a couple years ago. And i think in texas if i remember rate i didnt read it in preparation for today so its not on the top of my head. 2016. Thank you for that. I forgot the name it was a couple of years old. So i think theyll continue to be litigation over that issue. Interesting interesting if you think about it. I mean i wasnt a big fan frankly of the gerrymandering case. But you could end up in a situation where red and blue states sort of doo are do Different Things in there within the state allocation. And so this is an argument that can go both directions depending on whether you are in a red state or blue state. Just 30 seconds. David, david i think johns its johns turn then i have a question for john after he says what he is about to say. Ill repeat to neil numbers is short for numbers of inhabitants thats one thing. Within on the question of whether total population or voters, this is interesting because if you are an american citizen living outside of the United States but not connected to the military or our government you are not counted. But if we start going by voters in the state at least for the state district you will be counted. Now, what justified that . What you dont realize is that this independent Census Bureau is not so independent. You can look at it and see the political influences in their advisory committees, in the arguments about where people should be counted. And they make arbitrary decision that is may be conducive to counting but theyre not conducive to understanding citizenship. Its not just that matter. Any say we will count you in the place where you normally reside. Okay. If you are legally a citizen of one state but you happen on that day or regularly to live somewhere else youre going to get counted in that other state even though you are voting over here. They do that to students too. If you have college age stujts you will experience what i experienced in the last census. They will call you up and say you have college age student are they living at home . Well no they are in another state. Bingo they moved to the other state whether or not they have been legally residing in that state in the sense of evidence by drivers license and in addition to drivers license voting. Yeah, then they would become a citizen. Now this i want to say to all the parents out there who have students in state schools in other states where they will not give you in state tuition. Here is the argument you make and plaintiffs lawyers please listen. The argument is that the reason a state can deny you in state tuition is because after all citizens of the state are paying taxes and youre coming from out of state and youre imposing costs. Guess what. By counting you in that state and i can tell you the colleges do it aggressively theyre going to get at least 1,200 a head for the ten years of that. So and you can look down on the numbers. This is ironic. California has at least on public colleges a net deficit. California could pick up lots of dough by suing on in very question of counting citizens in the wrong place. Were going to have wonderful litigation for a long time. And we need it. We need it to expose the corruption of the Census Bureau. John, can i ask you a different question . And im going to turn to a point neil made earlier. Three federal trial judges ruled that commerce secretary wilbur ross was not being truthful in his sworn testimony before congress that he decided to add the Citizenship Question solely in response to a Justice Department request for data to help enforce the Voting Rights act. And chief Justice Roberts it seems to me agreed. Put bluntly was wilbur rosss explanation a lie . And part two, if so would it have been appropriate for the Supreme Court to dismiss the lie as too insignificant to warrant requiring further process before allowing ross to add the Citizenship Question. Anybody working in the department of government knows that secretaries dont do in research. Theyve got lots of lawyers and staffs to do things. Staff send them information. They rely on that information. And i can tell you because louisiana did it a number of attorneys general sent letters to the department asking that this information be available because they have to defend against litigation which always follows the census. Now, neil talked about motivation. And what they the argument was basically that this administration doesnt care about the rights of people so this has to be a phoney argument. I dont care whether you care about the rights or not if you think that. As a matter of defense lawyers need this information. Its not a frivolous thing. Neil mentioned motivation. If we start parsing the motivation not only of members of administrative branchs what we are saying is they cant have various motivations cant have multiple motivations and cant be political motivations we have to leave this all to the tech know kratz and of course they have no motivations, right they are robots. Neil, a somewhat related question. And then please address it, david and i know you had a point you wanted to make. The dissenting liberal justices in trump versus sawiement and many commentators thought the reason offered for the trump travel ban was pretext and the real reason was antimuslim and must. Which with o did the administration win in that case and lose in the census case on the similar pretext issue . So i think and in my response ill pick up up what professor baker mentioned because i think its kind of relevant to the answer. I think the travel ban case actually illustrates the degree of deference that the court was willing to give to the administration. There was significant evidence out of the president s mouth of antimuslim animus to but there was other work by other members of the administration and there was a general sense that the process worked. And whatever the president may have been saying and whatever his motivation may have been, the process generally worked. I actually think that i sort of always chuckle. Sally yates was fired not defending the first travel ban. And two weeks later the department of justice abandoned the first travel ban and decided it couldnt defend it either and went to travel ban two and then travel ban three. And by the time they got to three i i teach a a lecturer at harvard law school. And i said i dont know how thankful ban three will come out because it can never be that you dissipate the taint. And so but i think that case should have been argued. I never thought that the chief justice would find the cht of the United States a racist. And that i think it should have been argued on the standard of review, the deference issue and all of that and not really on whether his statements were racist or not. The arguia are ward pop fantastic lawyer, but i think it was misconceived. I think the problem with the census case and if the facts had been the way professor baker just did it, it may have been a different issue. But the problem was it wasnt like there was an articulated rationale which was logical and one that wasnt logical or that people cant have mixed motives or political motives because all thats going to happen. What you had is a secretary who came up with an entire story. He said the story was his sole motivation. I think that was his language. In order to respond to a request from the department of justice it had to do with necessity of defending Voting Rights cases or litigating Voting Rights cases i shouldnt say defending whichever litigating Voting Rights case. And it just didnt turn out to be true. And so the whole issue of review of administrative actions has got to be fundamental fundamentally the Administrative Agency has to say the reason for its decision, or else the entire judicial review process turns out just to be a joke, because if its sort of whatever they can come with up after the fact or whatever the department of justice can come up with in connection with litigation thats not actually review. I think this was an example of the chief justice saying, look, i mean, i think i fundamentally agree with justice alit o and Justice Thomas said. But i think his position was that may be true but thats not this case. In case is someone who came one a rationale, turned out not to be a valid rationale. He said it was his sole rationale. And thats just asking too much of in court to defer to. I think thats what was going on. I think thats the difference between the two cases. Otherwise, there is one more sentence i know everybody wants to go after me thats fiep. Big boy. John had a point. Im sorry were you done i interrupted you its like you were finished. Ill quit. Okay. Its about time for audience questions but first john has something to add. If you go back to the march memo that secretary ross issued, thats not in there as his sole motivation i know he made that statement but thats not in the memo that way. Just to show high a high degree of collegiality here i actually grooe with neils points regarding the the ability to draw the difference between the travel ban cases and this case yes they did clean up things several times and even the worst kind of taint dissipates. But, look, frankly, we spend a lot of time talking about the apa issue. I would say dissent by the four justices makes an excellent point. To me, again, the more fundamental question really is what we shall be looking for as a country relative to obtaining information would inform a whole lot of debates. And by the way we dont have time to get into this but with respect to neil i would say the whole proint baker and i lay lewded to relative to inhabitant et cetera, people have written briefs and law review articles on the subject. Its likelihood to do justice to this. But, again, getting the numbers, getting information, and having the litigation turn out as it may, i think its probably about as a reasonable approach as possible. And there is something suspicious to me with respect, ladies and gentlemen, to people who are so stush ownerly eager not to have the information. Because thats not thats not a usual practice in a democracy. And, you know, im not saying thats neils position. But cory booker for example introduced legislation that would bar the federal government from providing any kind of information about citizenship of the states, whether it comes from the ee newholm ration or comes from other federal governments generated documents. Is that a good thing that we should be hiding that kind of information . I dont think so. Stewart can be, with can i have one more not really. Sure and then if anyone in the audience has questions press have them ready. What actually struck me in some ways this is not particularly political and so i dont know if my colleagues agree with me or not on this. But what struck me about the chief justices opinion on the apa issues was how much deference he would grant agency heads. Which is and significant hi more than i think actually courts of appeals typically grant to to the epa and various other decisions. There was an enormous amount of deference to the decisions by the secretary even in the face of really very little evidence if any evidence supporting his decision. And yet the chief justice basically said, look, o, its his decision to make. Nobody except alit oi thought it was reviewable but he was quite deferential. And i sort of wonder. I dont know your reaction. But it was a little skiz ofriend erric because hugely deferential and more than i thought the law was until the opinion came out on the apa editions decisions by an agency head and then obviously im willing to go as far as the he ultimately went. But i would said he was more deferential. I dont know what will happen but there will be another democratic president and that language is there. And well see what happens with when dma takes place. Question audience questions. Yes, maam. Hi, can you hear me . Mic on . The court did say that secretary arbitrary and capricious review but when you look at dissent he should it should have stopped right there not went any further. But judge roberts went further on and go into the mental depressions of the the secretarys mind. The dissent with thomas said that that should never happen. And that when he did that he opened up a pandoras box for that pretextual approach in other cases to come forth. He also ended with this. He said hopefully he thought it could be a ticket good for this day and this train only. And eany thoughts. I agree. The eis he cynical level i probably would say with neil i practiced for a lot of Administrative Law for a living. It would be more work for me if this was a change in Administrative Law where you could scrutinize this is pretextwell np i suspect its one time only. I suspect i agree with neil pl the rhetoric of the chief justice opinion was fine. I think in some whiches its nfib, one ride only pony. But again it doesnt excite me nearly as much as the other issues involved here. But, yes, i think whats interesting is that talking about lack of deferens, i talked about the fact that five justices do believe in asking a Citizenship Question even in the current environment impacted by the particularly that its statutorily legitimate. I dont think anybody reading the opinion can disagree. Because he but we have four justices if you carefully parse justice breyerss opinion he is saying it can never be done. And the reason it cant be done is because of the suppression of a Response Rates and in effect that in his opinion consisting of a tech know trat view of Census Bureau its never necessary. We have four justices who think it is never permissible under the census act. They obviously have not grappled with the section of the section 2 of the 14th amendment argument. If i would owe i were Justice Roberts i would look for a better trade on nfib saying im going to kill this on apa grounds. But why doept you get at least seven justice. Im sorry im using jargon but im talking about the constitutionality to the individual insurance purchase mandate. It was not a good deal in my opinion nothing to do with the la. You gentleman why dont you ask your questions. The constitution speaks about persons in reference to counting obviously slaves, although they dont use the term. And im wondering, this is purely historical question. Whether there was any controversy over who should be counted as a slave and whether, for example, plantation owners would say, i have 1,000 freemen working for me to bol sister the number of people under mo could be claimed for representation . And it comes to mind because after the civil war, of course, when slaves were freed then the southern representation increased, which is quite a bounty for losing a war. So does anyone know anything about the counting of slaves in ante bell up area. I dont know how the count was carried out for a long time it was carried out by marshals. I dont know what when they switched and to what extent and what methods they used. But in article 1 it provides not only about slaves and freemen. Its also for for others as well. According to the respective numbers which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons including those bound to service for a term of years. Is that what you were referring to those bound. Well the three fichgts claus. Thats after it. But the whole woint point was its about representation. And everyone who was an inhabitant was to be represented except slaves were only represented as three fichgts of persons. Madison addresses this in the federalist. The south wanted them counted as persons. The south wanted it, real irony. The north said, no, they shouldnt be counted at all because the south considers them property. The census has been disputed from the beginning regarding who should be represented. The key is there is representation, even if only three fichgts from the beginning. There is representation for others who are servants. There were relatively few citizens compared to today. Remember, the whole concept of citizenship was new. You know it goes back to ancient times. Today we have lost the concept of citizen. We equate resident with citizen. For instance people refer to chinese citizen. They are not citizens. They are inhabitants. Yeah but theyre not citizens. Citizen means a person engaged in the political body who has a say. Thats what a citizen is. Just quick point i also do not know its actually dsh i dont know of any research on this issue. But its interesting to show you again the lack of this certitude that hear that these are just all persons. The there is specific textual exemption in article 1 for indians not action at aed why is that . Theyre personed because they owe owed for a along time to it different body politic. We talking about dependent nations et cetera, et cetera. Again if we had several hours we can delve into the question of a practice and the public meaning and john alluded to, the terse reference to numbers and what happened at the committee of style level and it does thats probably not useful for purposes of today. All im saying there is more here than stroorld well, huyer here were counting you for these purposes. Could i jump in. Go ahead, we. I really didnt understand what john said. And i just want to make clear that i didnt understand it. The constitution said anybody born in the United States is a citizen. I dont know thats involved. If they are born. Yes. Thats different from coming in. Or naturalized. You said chinese are not citizens. Anybody born in the United States. In china in china. They refer to their people as citizens theyre not citizens theyre inhabitants. Our constitution doesnt cover china. That was an example to show how people have diluted the term citizen. It means something. It means more than simple being a person. It means more than being a a resident. It means that you have duties and obligations that go long with your rights. There are rights and thats why we have the privileges and immunities claus even the Supreme Court has greatly minimized what that means. The 14th amendment on privileges and immunities and equal protection and due process is taken from roman law. Moderate rules florida its time for another question from the audience. I was just scanning my brain for richard epsteins roman law class. Can yall preview after this census the the litigation thats going to happen relating to citizenship . Evan well was mentioned where the court said you dont have to have district lines drawn by a citizens of voting age cvapm certainly certain states will try to do that one question is can you use cvap . What but what other things are going to be litigated the alabama case is already in process. Well i would say that im look, i am would have high confidence that with the good citizenship data we are going to get to a point where two justices which is its permissible were talking about intrastate reduced by does have political sail yens because it rebalanced the rural and urban counties. Again, i dont personally care about the political sail yens. Its not an issue. I happen to think if well litigated a despite case law thats well previewed and having to do with challenges to the apportionment, i am reasonably opt miskt again, i didnt hear anybody makeny observations for the first time if a kwort is presented with statistical data, if it shows that some states are augmenting their electoral prowess and political power at the expense of other states. Because its a zerosum game. There is something wrong with it. It undermine the foupgsle bargain. That argument was never presented to the court. All the case law one person, one vote. And if the numbers are sufficiently dramatic it would be very difficult for somebody who is an originalist to say plus all the discussion about what a person versus inhabitant really mean in the context of article 1. As well as the 14th amendment. But i wouldnt go at it immediately i would start with intrastate redirecting. Sir. Well i want to thank neil for being a capable spokesman for his side in this debate. My question is for him one of my table mates hand add question also for neil. I would start with the correction though its border naturalized appear subject to the jurisdiction there of. And thats an active topic of discussion in in the circles as to who is born a u. S. Citizen as a matter of constitutional entitlement. But my question is in section 2, as david mentioned, in section 2 of the 14th amendment, the precise wording is disenfranchised on the basis of representation there in shalling reduced in the proportion to which the number of male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens 21 years of age in such a state. If redirecting has to happen or if apportionment and representation has to happen on the basis of census numbers, those words were written in 1866. Ratified in 1868. The census question was asked in 1820 and 30, not 40 but again in 50 and 60. Would the framers of the 14th amendment have understood that in eight dsh dmsh 80 of recent censuses this question was always asked that text to me teams to presuppose that they had that information off the census the way it was being asked at that time. So im curious as to why im wrong on that. The question from my seat meat is if i hate your guts and you owe me 100,000 and i sue to collect the 100,000 you owe me without the informing the court of my hatred for you should be smud my suit be thrown out because i hate you . Again from from a esteemed member of the room not from me. Thank you. Were assuming that this is a hypothetical question. I think i think my friend has the highest respect for me. So on the second question if the suits against me of course is should be thrown out. So on your first question, look, i think the language look, the first pace and this is a big conservative doctrine, the first place you go is not to legislative history. You first place you go is to the text of the constitution. You can say what the framers may or may not have thought but i think they wrote the words which is counting the whole person. Its hard to read that anywhere else. Obviously there can be litigation over it and i think there will be and people like mr. Rivkin will put in a bereave orb professor baker will put a bereave saying its inhabitants as longterm term of art. Interestingly inhabitants is not in the constitution. Well the only let me finish. The only problem is the Supreme Court has given deferens to the last draft before the draft on the final drafting. Well well but my second point which i think is quite interesting which relates to sort of a foundation there is really interesting scholarship has come out since the decision came out, which was really calling into question the facebook for much of roobts opinion that in fact i havent done the research myself but theres been research that ive read by respected academicishens that the question has never been on a census as census. Its always been to some subgroup that they ask frequently not about citizenship but a lot of the yeses were about where they were bren, not where they were citizens. Because the question was sort of an assimilation issue. Frequently asked to a subgroup then since 1950 its been as i understand it largely asked for a subgroup. Look i think there is a lot more litigated about this. But thats are solve my general view of the request zblee can i just add, 30second point. Ive not made it so far but might as well share it with you today. Actually i thought rp you were going to ask a different question. If you look at the section of language 2 unless i ar fark morabund or irrelevant which its not courtesy of among other things sf the six justices of the Supreme Court. If you look at the language it talks about male citizens 21 years old a citizen baseline at that point in time and it talks about cutting pro rata if you deny suffrage, that language can only work math matically using the cvap for baseline. Because if you abridge the right of 10 of the citizens to vote but you are your representation in the house is padded by having a lot of noncitizens what are you going to be cutting. That wasnt my question. No, no im not pointed to if we litigate this make a meal of it. Thats the validation of the language not just the intent but the understanding that led to the language of section 4 means that the people who propose it voted in it had it ratified had the same understanding of how article 1 section 2 works. Because otherwise it makes no sense math matically just play with the numbers. Well look can i just i mean, look in the same section you are guing that person and citizen have the same meaning. I think most canons of construction would say thats absolutely not true. Can i make another point. You made an argument about the 74 case. Look, i think that case was largely whether or not i completely agree with you on this section 2 of article 14 specifically says if you are committed if you have exited a crime you can be excluded from the right to vote. And what the basically decision is i agree with if you its in the constitution its not morabund. And court basically said thats a permissible ground for excluding root it to vote and were not going to punish you under section 2 for that. But it doesnt mean nalt every 10 years you have to count all the citizens because at some point in the future that nobody can possibly dream of there might be some exclusion of males over the age of 21 as a class from voting. And thats essentially what your argument does i think anyway. Sir. Well its clear the driver of the census was originally for representation purposes. The functions of the United States government have substantially changed over the years. If secretary ross had said its important that we know the numbers of citizens and noncitizens in the various jurisdictions across the United States because it affects a lot of welfare policies and other kinds of policies, would that have been defensible . John, you want to take a crack at that. I listened to the question. But i was initially going to respond this which. And ill respond and you tell me if it answers. I separate the constitutional from the statutory function of the census. And there is no reason why you cant split those two. And it would be quite possible to say were only going to reapportion based on citizens and permanent legal residents but were going to distribute monies based on total population because there is population and they are strange the resources in the state and thats the way we want to distribute it. I think maybe if the white house or whoever came out with this distinction youd find a lot of the plaintiffs dropping off, because in any particular census its marginal as to which states are affected. So last time louisiana this time alabama. And basically for many Public Officials and organizing groups, if their state is not affected in terms of representation but theyre short assured much the money theyll go on to other things. But if you had Accurate Information about persons who were citizens and noncitizens and decided in your allocation process to implement that so that there, a disincentive for states to have a lot of noncitizens but receiving public benefits. Im not addressing that policy question. Yes. I think that california, which is lawsing ma losing many citiz replacing them with illegals and keeping dollars up. Sir. Hi, reporter with npr news. My first question for professor baker. Professor baker one of the former Commerce Department attorneys who was involved in the Trump Administrations efforts to get a Citizenship Question, jails uthmaeir was a Law School Student of yours. And he told the houseio Oversight Committee in the transcribed interview you had been in discussion was him when the Trump Administration was preparing requests for a sinship question. Can you determine if you were in discussion was mr. Uthmeir. I had various conversation was my close friend james uthmeier. When you call me though the deposition ill answer your questions. Okay. I did tend you an email a few months ago. Did you please when you schedule a deposition could you send a note to everybody here so we could all hear the whole show. Happy to do that. Did you discuss the use of citizenship information for for congressional apportion of thement purposes. The prifrg is made im not going into those. I dont have a lawyer here. Im not a lawyer, sir. Remember, any lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a. If i can ask a question for mr. Rivdin. Gy curious why do you think adding citizenship to the 2030 census you you said that earlier during the panel why would that be important given the Census Bureau is now preparing under the Trump Administration orders administrative records which the bureau says would be more accurate and also the distinction that professor baker abrupt up yerler about the kmern Community Third a third of respondents give false answers. Why would be it important to have the Citizenship Questions. Two reasons, first of all having information from two different sources one obtained from statistical records by various Government Agencies and departments. Actually ee newholm ration im not a statistician but i believe there are techniques of reconciling the two baselines. That would be useful. And second, the thing that excites me much more intellectually than all the apa stuff is again id like id like it resolved, frankly not in the as depoliticized of a context as possible in modern day and age, not in the context of this coming census but for something thats going to happen more than ten years from now. Whether or not it is permissible to ask in question on a census how seriously we should take that question of you know suppression and equal protection. Thats one of the reasons i like the richardson case because the challenge there was equal protection. Which resides in section 1 of the 14th amendment. So i think it would be useful for us as a country to resolving this country question without reference to a particular census. And in ray clean way separating from who said what to whom who spoke with him, who testified about what. I mean, i dont know any good reason. Why not . Whats wrong with that. When you say clean way, you. Merits, merits as to whether or not it is it is in my opinion constitutionally compelled, neil disagree was me but at least its stul allowed. Again we have five justices of the Supreme Court that say in in case that it issed allowed. Well lets run it to the ground. Why not. Were almost out of time. Im going to announce the moderator prerogative of asking one last question to each of you after you say what you are going to say. Okay. Look. Years ago the Census Bureau wanted to do a statistical model to distribute representation. And congress, not experts, but representing common sense said no. What wilbur ross has done is proven that the political instincts of congress were much better than the expertise of the statisticians. We dont have distribution of house seats based on a statistical model. We have an actually newholm ration. Thanks. Here is my last question. Could each of you in order, john, david, neil, address it briefly. Stipulating that it would be nice to know a lot about the composition of the population including citizens, Illegal Immigrants and so forth, what in your view are the two most Important Reasons why we should know as much as possible about that . Including the question on the census . John. I come back to my distinction between citizens and noncitizens. And you know, we have people who come into this country and get a green card and choose never to become a citizen. And that can be a problem. That is those who are legally on a path dont always become citizens. If we dont value citizenship and dont teach it which were not by and large, my concern is about citizenship. It means something. I made the comment about china. And i teach Chinese Students primarily. And i love those Chinese Students. But to call them citizens is false. Unless all you mean is resident. And what the Census Bureau is doing is counting the residents here even Embassy Staffs and they are not counting citizens who live abroad and who have the right to vote in this country. And they are denying them representation. Thank you, david. In my case very briefly there could be a variety of perfectly legitimate reasons that would help inform better debate about spending. About immigration policy. But most fundamental reason in my opinion we at the very least have to give states an opportunity to use the cvap numbers for intrastate directing and if im right i think thats a very important question in terms of constitutional architecture in the context enumeration. Its the american way to get the information and then we can debate what it means. Not getting the information is a very bad way to proceed. Or trying prevent the giving of information. One Last Mountain if you read evan will carefully one of the arguments used by folks opposing the citizenship data is that there is no reliable citizenship data. By the way while there is data base produced under the skuft executive order i will bet you my house when people litigate they will say the data is unreliable because its not derived from enumeration. Full stop. Neil, you get the last worse. Thanks. First just before the last word. Im usually the odd man pout on these panels. But i want to tell everybody how much i appreciate being invited and how much i appreciate the consideration people give me even though i know for most of you im not arcing views that you think much of. And so i i appreciate that. So look, the way think about this from a different viewpoint which as i mentioned earlier, this question to me has to do with the enumeration which i believe calls for counting persons, which i think is what the constitution says. Again there will be some litigation whether persons actually mean citizens. I think i have the better argument of that. Dont forget the corporations, now. Well, thats right they just have religious rights. I dont know if they can vote yet. But then i think apportionment equally is on the basis on the basis of persons and not on the basis of citizenship. But i would say i mean, the outcome of the executive order that came out afterwards and which is quite consistent actually with what the experts inside of Census Bureau were saying, which is that asking the question on the census was not a way to get Accurate Information. And disagreed with the secretarys determination that in fact asking it doing it through the other ways and getting it through the enumeration would produce better dat data . He said actually what you end up with is inconsistent data because of the likelihood that people arent answering correctly. Let me just finish for a second. Sure. So i think but fundamentally i think the issue is what does the constitution require . And i believe that questions that interfere with the constitutional requirement of enumeration should not be permitted. Everything else is an addon because people are going to walk around asking a bunch of questions anyway. But thats not what the question talks about. It talks about counting the people in the United States. And i think that well do fine unthe other method. And frankly as my friend david says, if it turns out congress doesnt like it this is an area remember this is not a president ial power. This is in article 1 of the constitution. This ises the article 1 Power Congress has the power to alter so long it comply was the constitution. Neil, i apologize i was going to ask you a question. All right. What do you want to bet whether im right or wrong, that all of this information generated from in superior statistical discernment method will be absolutely challenged any time somebody tries to use it as not being driven by enumeration. And am i fantasizing you give me pretty good odds thats going to happen. I dont will somebody challenge it . Of course. And someone will challenge if it had been on the kreps us. Thats what we do in the United States. But challenged specifically because its not derived from enumeration in their opinion its constitutionally superior form of getting this information. Well, except if you remember you you know, this is sort of the issue we talked about sort obliquely a little bit pap much of the fight is about distribution of money. The constitution doesnt compel that part of it. The congress compels that part. They can guy up the money any way they want. They dont have to follow the constitutional enumeration. I think the constitution compels how we do it and adding the question interferes with that constitutional duty. Thats ultimately where im at. I think we are out of time plus some. Id like to a thank all the panelists for wonderful remarks. [ applause ] thank thank the audience. Good questions. And i thank the Federalist Society for putting on affairs like this which i think we can learn a lot from. Here a look at our primetime schedule on the cspan networks. Starting at 7 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan President Trump holds a Campaign Rally with voters and supporters in cincinnati. At 8 00 p. M. On cspan2, a hearing on legislation that aims to change the rules of Asylum Seekers while establishing Processing Centers outside the u. S. And at 8 eastern, on cspan3, programs and events related to the civil war. Friday, remarks from assistant secretary of state Christopher Ford on potential ways the u. S. Can work toward eliminating weapons of mass druestruction. In the middle east. Starting live on that starts life at a 15 p. M. Eastern also cspan. Watch our exclusive interview with President Donald Trump as he reflects on his first 2 1 2 years in office, including the raising of the debt ceiling. Take a look at the European Union thats doing poorly, chinas really poorly, take a look at other countries that are not doing well, with the hottest country in the world were doing great economically and otherwise we have a lot stronger military, a lot stronger than this budget and at some point we will cut back, we had to rebuild our military, we didnt have a choice expect an interview with trump saturday on cspan, watch anytime any time and listen wherever you are. This weekend on American History tv saturday at 8 pm eastern and lectures in history, comparison between Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson on the constitution. Take a look at the whole cartoon its a different impression of what they thought about johnson at the time that he didnt understand the constitution. It was above his ability and he was acting in unconstitutional ways expect sunday at 6 pm on american artifacts of review of the 19th amendment at the national archives. Women in new jersey who were americas first voters beginning in 1776 when new jersey became a state and the state constitution made no mention of sex so women who owned property, so not all women but those who could did and voted at the local, state and National Level in elections. Author john farrell talks about nixons early life and career. Early 1948 he campaigned for the marshall plan. He went to every rotary club, every chamber of commerce and American Legion hall, every cloud crowd that would take him , he told them his best judgment and he convinced them. The Party Primaries were held in california in the summer of 1948, Richard Nixon did not just win the republican nomination, he won the democratic nomination. He wagered everything and carried the day he ran unopposed for his election campaign. Explorer nations passed on American History tv every week and on cspan3. Reagan is an intellectual hes an intellectual and hes comfortable with ideas and he understands the power of ideas. With that kind of intellectual foundation, a political leader can do all kinds of marvelous things. Leo edwards will be our guest on indepth, sunday from noon to 2 p. M. Eastern, mr. Edwards is the author of just right plus a collection of biographies to join our live conversation with your phone calls, tweets and facebook questions, watch in depth live sunday from noon to 2 pm eastern and be sure to watch live coverage of the 2019 National Book festival on saturday, august 31 on book tv on cspan2. Next, 2020 president ial candidates speak at the naacp annual convention in detroit, this is two hours. Thank you. Thank you so much, it is so good to be here. It is great to visit with you. We are going to have a conversation. Im so glad to hear that. You have an Opening Statement got to minutes. Thank you for having me here, its such h