Minneapolis Star Tribune, Jan. 21
Ruling could prevent undercount of immigrants in the 2020 census
Judge rightly says citizenship question would depress participation.
The official count of U.S. residents ought not be affected by politics. A federal court said as much last week in a ruling that wisely took the Trump administration to the woodshed over its ill-advised move to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
President Donald Trump’s Commerce Department, which develops the census forms, said early last year that it planned to add a yes or no citizenship question to the questionnaire. Critics of the move fear that adding such a query would cause many people in immigrant communities to see the census as a potential tool of immigration law enforcement and refuse to participate.
Since the administration announced the change, several legal challenges have been filed. In the most recent decision, New York federal Judge Jesse M. Furman ruled that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner and violated laws governing the census.
Portions of Furman’s 277-page decision spoke directly to Ross, properly chastising him and his department for failing to justify departing from past census practice. The court added that Ross ignored laws requiring Congress to be notified three years in advance about adding a citizenship question to the national survey.
Furman’s ruling came in response to cases brought by the District of Columbia, 18 states, 15 large cities or counties and immigrants’ rights groups. They argued that if the citizenship question caused an undercount of populations in immigrant communities, those communities would lose representation in Congress and state legislatures, while being deprived of public funding in programs based on population. Plaintiffs in the New York case also argued that the question would lead to a population undercount in blue states.
Using census data, the court concluded that allowing that question could reduce participation in households with noncitizens by 5.8 percent or more. In Minnesota, state demographers estimate that if the question stands, a portion of the $8 billion the state receives annually from the federal government could be in jeopardy. And Minnesota and other states could lose congressional seats if noncitizens opted not to participate.
On behalf of the administration, the Justice Department argued that the change was reasonable because the question had been on the census before 1950. In addition, Ross said asking the question was necessary to help the government enforce the Voting Rights Act, which is intended to help increase representation for minorities and other underserved groups.
That rationale rings hollow coming from an administration that is working to roll back immigration. And as this Editorial Board has argued previously, collecting census data should not be subject to politics. Though some believe that noncitizens should not be counted - or represented - we disagree. Most adult immigrants, regardless of their status, are people who work, pay taxes, purchase goods and services, and otherwise contribute to the economy. Representation should not be tied to citizenship in a nation that has an estimated 12 million undocumented residents and another 22 million who are here legally but have not yet become citizens.
A 2016 unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision affirmed that view. Justices said districts may be drawn based on total population - not just those eligible or registered to vote.
Conducting a census is mandated by the Constitution. Its vital purpose is to compile as accurate a count as possible of those living in the United States. That means everyone - not just citizens. Many aspects of American life are affected by census numbers, and a move to purposefully undercount a segment of the population is a bad idea. Those who want the most accurate census possible should hope courts presiding over the other pending challenges to the Commerce Department’s plan will follow Furman’s lead.
___
Mankato Free Press, Jan. 22
Special education: State money is answer to lack of federal funds
Why it matters: The federal government’s promises to fund special education have fallen woefully short, but some state elected leaders are reluctant to pick up the tab
The problem of funding special education has gone on for decades in Minnesota, and it’s time to solve it.
We can’t count on the federal government. It has never fulfilled its promise to fund 40 percent of special education costs to the states.
And the dysfunction in Washington means funding is unlikely to arrive anytime in the next decade.
States, unfortunately, are faced with federal mandates but inadequate funding to support those mandates.
The federal government funds about 8 percent of special education costs while states fund about 63 percent, according to a report in the Star Tribune. Local school districts are left to pick up the tab, a gap of about $724 million of Minnesota’s $2.2 billion in special education funding.
Everyone, it seems, sees the need to fund special education, with many saying it is a moral obligation to provide education to every child’s needs. If that’s the case, then someone has to step up and fund it and fill the funding gap.
When then-Gov. Mark Dayton asked the Republican Legislature last year to fund deficits at school districts to the tune of about $138 million, Republicans balked, with some arguing schools were to blame for their deficits.
The leader of the state’s major business group, Charlie Weaver, of the Minnesota Business Partnership, told the Star Tribune the state doesn’t have a K-12 funding issue because schools have been given funding increases under Dayton.
But the reality seems to tell a different story. More and more school districts are taking money away from regular programs to meet the mandated funding under special education. And the number of special education students is growing to a point where school administrators are calling the gap a “crisis.”
A bipartisan group points to special education paperwork as an onerous burden and budget drain and has proposed cutting some of the time special education teachers have to spend on the paperwork.
It sounds like a good idea until you hear parent groups say the procedures that take time also make sure their children are treated fairly in their programs and their needs are met.
The state and Gov. Tim Walz need to make a bold move on special education and fund a good portion of the gap. Schools and parents need to work together to reduce paperwork and bureaucracy that takes money away from students’ needs.
We’d like to see the state pay more and school districts try to be more efficient with the dollars they do have. With a state surplus of $1.5 billion, there should be room in the budget.
Special education funding has been an incessant problem for too long. An educator/governor like Walz should be the one to solve it.
___
Post Bulletin, Jan. 22
New law supports first responders
Most of us have probably often wondered how first responders deal with the stress they routinely encounter in their jobs. Their work life, while often rewarding, can at any moment become frustrating, gruesome and sad.
Dealing with loss of life, violent criminals, small children living in drug houses, families burned out of their homes, or other traumas great and small, can and do take a toll.
Until now, many first responders and emergency technicians suffered in silence. Or, when they did seek treatment for job-related stress, they could find their requests for reimbursement rejected.
As of Jan. 1, though, a new state law recognizes post-traumatic stress disorder as an occupational disease for police officers, firefighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians and nurses who provide emergency services outside a medical facility.
Previously, those filing a workers’ compensation claim for PTSD had to prove the issue was related to work. As a result, they often had their claims denied. According to the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, of the 23 claims filed in 2018, none have received payment, and are still awaiting settlement.
Ideally, that won’t happen under the new statute. One of the main reasons for enacting the law is to make sure first responders get the help they need in a timely manner.
After all, these men and women do essential work in our communities. We owe them our gratitude, not to mention assistance, financial or otherwise, when the job overwhelms them.
“When people do need help, I think it’s the state’s role and the employer’s role to make sure that people get the treatment they need, and this makes it more likely,” Chris Parsons, president of Minnesota Professional Firefighters, told the Post Bulletin.
We agree, and while words of thanks might help first responders know that we recognize the difficulty of their jobs, this statute also says we’ve got their back in other ways as well.
Also, we hope this change will encourage more first responders to decide they don’t have to hide the way stress affects them. They should know that there is no stigma attached to needing and asking for help. From the outside, their jobs look impossibly complicated and stressful. We can only imagine the amount of stress involved in doing those jobs day after day.
The good news is help is available, and it is now easier than ever to request it.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.