Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumFox & Friends disappointed when legal analyst explains why census question is unconstitutional
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/fox-friends-hosts-disappointed-legal-analyst-explains-trump-census-question-unconstitutional/
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)I'll take your word for it, though.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)but people don't have to answer.
They're trying to get a head count of eligible voters. I suppose they could take the data, and count just the ones that answered the question, and answered it in the affirmative...and that would be the eligible voter count. That wouldn't be accurate. But there is no current way to be accurate, now, as far as I know.
I never gave that any thought before. An interesting topic.
DrunkInTheAfternoon
(30 posts)He did say that people have the right not to answer. But, that's a different point altogether...
samnsara
(17,615 posts)rickford66
(5,523 posts)Bachmann, a Republican, said her family will only be indicating the number of people in the household, because "the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that."
I guess it was OK then.
lapfog_1
(29,198 posts)to reject forms not completely filled out.
That would have the same effect as the first objective which is to scare immigrants (legal or otherwise) to simply not answer any questions.
By not counting or scaring off some people, representation and federal dollars to those districts will be less. Since most if not ALL of the people not counted actually pay taxes, this is "taxation without representation". A phrase that I believe I heard before in some history class.