Citizenship Question on 2020 Census backed by US Justice Foundation

President Donald Trump’s decision to include a question about citizenship status on the decennial census is receiving critical support – as an activist federal judge tries to remove the question from the 2020 Census.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman issued a preliminary ruling that would ban the U.S. Department of Commerce from asking a citizenship question on the national count “without curing the legal defects.” The Trump administration is expected to appeal the lower court decision to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Our government is legally entitled to include a citizenship question on the census and people in the United States have a legal obligation to answer,” Kelly Laco, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said following the ruling. “Reinstating the citizenship question ultimately protects the right to vote and helps ensure free and fair elections for all Americans.”

The Justice Department’s potential appeal will be aided by a new report published by the United States Justice Foundation, which says that the lower court ruling is on shaky legal ground and is ripe for an appeal.

“Throughout history, the American people and government officials have seen the citizenship question as routine and non-controversial,” the US Justice Foundation, a nonprofit public interest organization, finds in its latest report on the 2020 Census. “Citizenship status was included in past census questionnaires, both short and long forms, as well as the American Community Survey.”

Bill Clinton’s Census Defended Citizenship Question

In its detailed report, the US Justice Foundation catalogues the overwhelming evidence to support inclusion of a citizenship question on the population tally, including the Clinton administration’s defense of the question.

Under President Bill Clinton, the US Justice Foundation points out, the Census Bureau identified many key government functions and benefits tied to the citizenship question, including education, employment, social services, provisions under the Voting Rights Act, and at least ten statutory uses.

“The Clinton administration defended both the short and long form U.S. Census questionnaires, including a question of citizenship status,” the US Justice Foundation observes in its report. “It is worth noting that a named party in the case, representing the U.S. federal government, is none other than Clinton Secretary of Commerce William M. Daley, who would later go on to serve as President Barack Obama’s chief of staff.”

In addition to the Voting Rights Act, the Clinton administration U.S. Census Bureau identified other government functions, programs and services where place of birth, citizenship and year of entry data serve the public.

  • Education: Support the Refugee Education Assistance Act, in allocating funds to public and private nonprofit organizations.
  • Employment: Evaluate the effectiveness of equal employment opportunity policies and programs under the Civil Rights Act.
  • Immigration Services: Determine proper staffing and budgeting for supporting non- citizens through the naturalization process.
  • Social Services: Develop health care and other services tailored to the language and cultural diversity of the foreign-born elderly.

84 Percent of California Census Committee Members Democrat

As the legal fight over the citizenship question continues, state-level census committees in liberal states could find themselves facing legal challenges of their own, due to lack of transparency and growing evidence of blatant partisan activities.

The California Complete Count Committee, an official state-level census government panel, recently produced just eight emails in response to a public records request filed by the US Justice Foundation.

The lack of transparency comes as questions are raised about the overwhelmingly partisan nature of the committee’s membership. An astounding 84 percent of California Complete Count Committee members – 21 of 25 – are registered Democrats, a poor representation of California’s actual political profile. Members of the California Complete Count Committee include powerful Democrat Party officials and left-wing activists, including the chief of staff for the California Labor Federation.

“With this decision, Democrats have opened the door to wide-ranging investigations into state-level census committees,” the US Justice Foundation notes.

To access and download the full 29-page report, click here:

U.S._Census_Bureau_logo_post-2011 download

Thank you CPR readers, for another great year!

The editors and writers at California Political Review join me in thanking you, our readers, for making this another successful year of our service to you.

In 2018, California Political Review saw record participation since creation of this on-line presence in 2011.  In 2018, we enjoyed over 1,600,000 “Page views” from readers like you, and an average 4,200 Page views per day, a new and remarkable yearly high.  Also, in total since 2011, CPR has received 7,200,000 Page views and has published over 59,000 reader comments!

CPR’s Facebook page at has grown to enjoy 21,841 “likes” and over 19,000 “followers”, thus increasing readership even further.

And according to the respected “Alexa” viewership rating system, CPR is the “113,900” most visited site in America.  That may sound like a high number, but considering all the websites out there, it is a very good rating, and very handily beats, with a much bigger audience, all the other conservative news aggregation and commentary websites dedicated to California.

If you are not yet signed up to receive our free daily newsletter, be sure to fill in the information by clicking HERE.

Thank you again and have a terrific 2019!



Jim Lacy on Jim Acosta’s rudeness, midterm election results, and more – VIDEO on Weekend Breakfast

In this video airing on Saturday, November 10 on Australian Broadcasting Corporation, California Political Review publisher Jim Lacy comments on CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s rudeness at a recent White House press conference, the meaning of the midterm elections, and more.



Feinstein’s Lost Clout Over Kavanaugh, Now Powerless on Judicial Appointments in Senate

Dianne Feinstein in Outer Space

For decades Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein of California has had powerful and even unusual influence on judiciary nominations in California for District Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and even appointments of US attorneys across the state.

Yet a recent action by the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee and a Senate vote on fifteen new nominees, makes it clear that Feinstein has totally and completely lost her ability to influence judicial appointments in the state, and it is all because of her shabby performance in the nomination, and attempt to delay the nomination, of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court, coupled with a touch of betrayal from her own party leader in the Senate.

Under Democratic Presidents Clinton and Obama, Feinstein always had an important role in who was ultimately appointed to a Federal judiciary position in California. As a California Senator and top ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Feinstein was able to wield the mighty “blue slip,” a Senate custom, which gave her a practical veto on many Presidential nominations in the state. Even when Republican George W. Bush was President, Feinstein took on an outsized power to review, reject and approve Bush appointees in California, even before they got to the Senate floor, through a controversial judicial “commission” setup up during Bush’s term.  The result was Bush was forced to compromise again and again on California judicial appointments, and was only able to appoint and confirm a handful of solidly conservative judges in California during his eight years as President.

The power Feinstein had on these appointments for three decades has surely helped make the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unquestionably the most liberal circuit court in the nation. Up until last week, only six of twenty-nine appointees on that Court were Republicans. Yet now, Feinstein’s reign in liberalizing California Federal appointments is over. And it appears the Senator Democratic leader Chuck Schumer may have helped Senate Republicans to cut Feinstein’s influence as well.

This is because last week, after the Kavanaugh confirmation was behind them, the Senate quietly confirmed fifteen additional Trump Administration judicial appointments, including Republican Ryan Nelson to the Ninth Circuit. Further, last week the Judiciary Committee approved two more Trump Administration Ninth Circuit nominees, (one of whom, Patrick Bumatay, is not only a Republican, but will be the first openly gay judge to ever serve on the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco) who will surely be confirmed by the full Senate after the November election. All three of these nominees were actively opposed by Feinstein and subject to her “blue slip” opposition. Schumer made a deal with Senate Republicans, despite Feinstein’s opposition, and according to news reports, what he got were two lower court nominees for East Coast courts who had been initially appointed by Obama but never confirmed. Thirteen out of fifteen was a pretty good deal for Senate Republicans to get quick approval now, and in the coming “lame duck” Senate, such a deal won’t be necessary because of Republican control. Thus, we can expect three new Republican members on the Ninth Circuit by the end of this year, all over Feinstein’s now powerless objections.

Feinstein had tried to make a last minute offer to the Trump Administration by publicly stating last week she would agree to seating Orange County Superior Court Judge and former Clinton-impeachment House Manager Jim Rogan to the Ninth Circuit, in return for also seating Nancy Koh, a Bay Area district court judge who had been nominated by Obama for the Ninth Circuit but whose nomination stalled in the Republican Senate. It appears that Senate Republicans and the Trump Administration didn’t think Rogan, a favorite of former “Never Trump” Republicans in California, or making a deal with Feinstein, who had held back Christy Blasey Ford’s letter against Brett Kavanaugh until the last minute and which was disclosed without Ford’s approval, was worth it. The result is that Feinstein was totally and completely cut out of the recent successful action moving three new Republicans forward to help remake the liberal Ninth Circuit, and that Feinstein was undercut by her own Senate leader in that process. Senate Republicans are still fuming over Feinstein’s role in attempting to derail that Kavanaugh confirmation, and their recent actions prove it. With Republicans looking to continue and perhaps even increase their control of the Senate as a result of the upcoming midterm elections, Ranking Member Feinstein’s influence on the Federal judiciary nationwide and especially in California appear deader than a doornail.

“Trump Now May Well Appoint 1/3rd of Supreme Court by 2020!” – Jim Lacy on “Weekend Breakfast”

In this video airing on Sunday morning, October 7 on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “Weekend Breakfast,” California Political Review Publisher Jim Lacy comments in real time on the 50-48 U.S. Senate vote confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, explains that the Democrats “really overplayed their hand,” that Republicans are now re-invigorated for the midterm elections and predicts that by the end of his term Donald Trump will have appointed 3 of the Supreme Court’s 9 members.  “Can you imagine if Donald Trump has appointed 1/3rd of the Supreme Court?!”



I’m With Republicans for De Leon. Feinstein Does Not Deserve Our Support.



According to a very recent Public Policy Institute of California Poll, Senator Dianne Feinstein’s lead over Kevin De Leon for re-election to her U.S. Senate seat has been cut in half, down from 22 points earlier this summer to 11 points now.  Some observers say Feinstein’s drop in the Democrat-on-Democrat runoff, can be attributed to her insidious performance in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.   They say Republican voters who are “orphaned” in the Democrat-only election, who were previously lined up to vote for the much older Feinstein over former State Senate President Kevin De Leon, are having trouble sticking with Feinstein over the shabby treatment she has given President Trump’s nominee in the Committee.

Count me in as one of those conservative voters who will reject Feinstein on November 6 and vote for De Leon instead!

Some Republicans I have listened to on the subject have made the case that Feinstein is more moderate than De Leon, and that she has a lot of experience and is wiser.  A few have made the ridiculous argument that because of her age, she is not likely to serve out her term, like De Leon would, providing an opportunity for a Republican “Governor Cox” to be able to appoint her successor.

But the fact is Cox will not be elected Governor, and by any objective standard, Feinstein, who has a single digit lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, is really not markedly more conservative than De Leon.  On every important issue that conservatives care about, Feinstein and De Leon are the same.  They are both essentially democratic socialists, its just that De Leon is transparent about it, and emphasizes it, while Feinstein is opaque about it, and de-emphasizes it.

And since there is little real difference, other than age, on the big issues, my view is this: why not go “full Disneyland” and send De Leon to the U.S. Senate?  Given his youth and inexperience, he will be ineffective for many years.  The ideas he will promote, some shared with Feinstein, will be too crazy even for his own party (sanctuary state, non-citizens having voting rights, abolish the Border Patrol), which wants most of all to win national elections, not just in California.  He will be a disaster for his party in the Senate.  He will be a thorn in their side.

And now given Feinstein’s awful treatment of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, I would much rather have the predictable lack of accomplishment of Kevin De Leon in the Senate than a more effective Dianne Feinstein.

I want to see Feinstein held accountable for the dirt she has done on the Judiciary Committee.  Holding back accuser Dr. Ford’s private letter for months when the claims could have been thoroughly reviewed in that time by the FBI is not just political outrage, it is a moral outrage!  She has allowed her colleagues to establish a terrible tone on the Committee where she serves as ranking member, such as her friend Senator Blumenthal, who publicly stated that Kavanaugh “is a serial rapist.”  Nothing could be further from the truth!  The “wishful thinking” of a frenzied liberal media salivating for a chance to thump Trump has been stoked by these false claims and manufactured crisis about an FBI investigation, and it all comes back to Feinstein.  She waited until the very last minute, even after meeting with him and not bringing it up, even after 30 hours or so of hearings with him.  She flew false flags with Kavanaugh.  Kavanaugh’s nomination, whose reputation as an appellate judge is stellar, who had passed 6 previous FBI investigations, was almost in the bag.  But Feinstein was determined to play underhanded and to deviously derail it with the most vile of unsubstantiated accusations, and promotion of the most terrible tone of any Senate hearing, ever.

I am outraged at what Dianne Feinstein has done to Brett Kavanaugh.  The one power I have to address this outrage is to not vote for her.  But that is not enough in my opinion.  Democrats who rule in California have succeeded in disenfranchising Republicans like me out of the option of voting for a Republican party candidate in the General election.  But they can’t stop me from just ignoring my ballot in this election.  So I am going to do what those Democrats would think unthinkable of me.  I am going to vote for Kevin De Leon for the U.S. Senate this November and heartily encourage all my Republican friends to do the same.  Let’s make the treatment of Brett Kavanaugh the reason why Dianne Feinstein is finally retired from politics.  It will not make the Senate more liberal, it will simply make California’s liberal Senate representation less effective.  And I believe, God will still help us even with Kevin De Leon.

New Poll: Proposition 6 Gas Tax Repeal Losing

Proposition 6 is on track to fail in November, according to a new poll by Probolsky Research.

Their latest polling shows 48% of voters oppose the measure when presented with the title they will read on their ballots.

Surprisingly, fewer than 60% of Republican voters support the gas tax repeal.

As the voter contact campaign begins to kick into gear, the polling firm stated that it expects changes in the numbers.  The poll can be accessed at this website:

 Screen Shot 2018-08-25 at 8.31.48 AM

Jim Lacy on midterm election analysis, Trump tweets, and booming U.S. economy – VIDEO

In this video airing Sunday, August 5 on Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “Weekend Breakfast,” California Political Review Publisher Jim Lacy handicaps the US midterm elections, discusses Trump and the media, explains the constitutional process of impeachment and why the President could not be impeached, and details the booming U.S. economy under Donald Trump.

In Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, only six GOP appointees of twenty-nine seats

As the Trump Administration focuses on its important Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, we are also reminded that of the twenty-nine members of the important U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, only six of the members were appointed by Republican presidents, resulting in the most liberal and highly overturned circuit court in the nation.  Sixteen of the current members were appointed by Democrats, and the vacancy rate is the highest in the nation, with seven positions not yet filled by President Trump.

“Scott Pruitt Wasn’t Elected President, Donald Trump Was!” – Jim Lacy on BBC World News – Video

In this clip from BBC World News airing on July 5, California Political Review Publisher Jim Lacy comments on the resignation of Scott Pruitt as Director of the Environmental Protection Agency, defends the President’s economic policies, and fields questions about the potential political impact of the resignation.