|
|
Sunday, November 22, 2009
- The Advocate eEdition
- |
- Wedding Forms
- |
- Newsletters
- |
- Text Alerts
- |
- Mobile
- |
- RSS
- |
Vitter's census idea refused by Senate
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted to block an amendment by U.S. Sen. David Vitter that would have required the U.S. Census Bureau to identify non-citizens in next year’s count.
The 60-39 vote was along party lines with Democrats supporting cutting off debate on a spending bill, effectively killing the amendment proposed by the Louisiana Republican.
Democratic U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu voted for what is called cloture, a parliamentary procedure that helps end debate quickly. She helped provide her party with the 60 votes needed to quash Vitter’s effort.
Vitter called for all federal funding to be cut from the census bureau until it adds a line to the census questionnaire next year asking if a person is a U. S. citizen. Vitter reasoned that the question was necessary because states with higher immigrant populations would benefit from a simple head count.
Population is used to decide how many U.S. House members a state has, its electoral delegates for the presidential vote and, in many cases, the amount of federal funding a state receives. After non-citizens are calculated, they could be removed from the population assessment process, Vitter said.
The current method of counting would guarantee that Louisiana will lose one of its seven House seats when reapportionment happens next year, Vitter said. States like California and Texas would benefit due to their higher immigrant populations, he said.
Though he didn’t mention Landrieu by name, Vitter expressed disappointment at the vote, which he said was orchestrated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Reid blocked an up or down vote on the amendment that would be politically difficult for senators in eight other states that would be in the same situation as Louisiana, Vitter said.
“I was disappointed that several Democrats chose loyalty to Harry Reid over their state’s direct interest in the census,” Vitter said.
Prior to the vote, Vitter made a last pitch to senators to allow his amendment to come up.
“However you may vote, this is an important issue,” Vitter said. “And however you may vote, we need a full debate and a vote.”
Landrieu recently laid out her opposition to the amendment in a letter to Vitter. Landrieu said the amendment was unconstitutional and would delay the census in addition to costing the federal government $1 billion, a figure Vitter challenged.
She added in her letter that Louisiana’s loss of population likely would lead to a loss of congressional seat “even if there was not one illegal immigrant in the United States.”
The census bureau has said it has already printed 425 million forms for the count.
Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland managed the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill on the floor Thursday and said that senators had adequate time to change the questionnaire.
The census bureau was required to present the form for approval by Congress in 2007.
“There was plenty of time to say ‘We don’t like the questionnaire, we want to add a citizenship question,’” Mikulski said. “That was the place and time.”
The census debate was ignited earlier this year by Shreveport pollster and political analyst Elliott Stonecipher and LSU constitutional law professor John Baker. The two wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal raising objections to the census process and questioning whether it met the intent of constitution framers.
The citizenship question had existed on a census long form up until 1980, the men said. Stonecipher said Thursday that he wasn’t surprised by the Senate outcome but liked that the issue reached the Senate floor.
“That’s why this was a good thing to do no matter what,” Stonecipher said.
Vitter agreed that Congress hasn’t heard the last of the matter.
“It’s a good effort that is just beginning,” Vitter said. “It’s certainly going to continue.”
« Back to index
Share this:
| First Name* | |
| Last Name* | |
| Email* | |
| Comments* | |
| * required fields | |
Please enter the text in the image | |
