Census Bureau Audit Reveals Criminals on the Payroll



[INSIDE JW]

COURT DECLARES CALIFORNIA’S CORPORATE BOARD GENDER QUOTAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[[link removed]]

A big victory for us and California: A court has found California’s
gender quota law for corporate boards unconstitutional. The verdict
comes after a 28-day trial (_Robin Crest et al. v. Alex Padilla_
[[link removed]]
(Case No. 19STCV27561)).

This verdict follows a similar ruling
[[link removed]]
in our favor last month that found California’s diversity mandate
for corporate boards unconstitutional.

We filed the gender quota lawsuit
[[link removed]]
in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2019 on behalf of California
taxpayers Robin Crest, Earl De Vries and Judy De Vries. The lawsuit
challenges a 2018 law, known as Senate Bill 826, which requires every
publicly held corporation headquartered in California to have at least
one director “who self-identifies her gender as a woman” on its
board of directors by December 31, 2019.

The law also required corporations to have up to three such persons on
their boards by December 31, 2021, depending on the size of the board.
We argued
[[link removed]]
that the quota for women on corporate boards violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the California Constitution.

California Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis agreed with us and
“determine[d] that SB 826 violates the Equal Protection Clause of
the California Constitution and is thus enjoined.”

In the court’s 23-page verdict
[[link removed]],
it specifically found that “S.B. 826’s goal was to achieve general
equity or parity; its goal was not to boost California’s economy,
not to improve opportunities for women in the workplace nor not to
protect California taxpayers, public employees, pensions and
retirees.” Further, the court found that “putting more women on
boards demonstrated that the Legislature’s actual purpose was
gender-balancing, not remedying discrimination.” “There is no
Compelling Governmental interest in remedying discrimination in the
board selection process because neither the Legislature nor Defendant
could identify any specific, purposeful, intentional and unlawful
discrimination to be remedied,” Judge Duffy-Lewis said.

Basically, what the court did was eviscerate California’s
unconstitutional gender quota mandate. This is the second California
court decision finding that quotas for corporate boards are
unconstitutional. The radical Left’s unprecedented attacks on
anti-discrimination law has suffered another stinging defeat.

Thankfully, California courts have upheld the core American value of
equal protection under the law. Our taxpayer clients are heroes for
standing up for civil rights against the Left’s pernicious efforts
to undo anti-discrimination protections. We have helped protect the
civil rights of every American with these successful lawsuits.

LAWSUIT AGAINST CHICAGO MAYOR ENDS ALONG WITH HER RACIST INTERVIEW
POLICY

We struck a blow against official racial discrimination in Chicago.

Our federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the Daily Caller News
Foundation and reporter Thomas Catenacci against Chicago Mayor Lori
Lightfoot was dismissed after Lightfoot said she will not limit
one-on-one interviews to “journalists of color” in the future
(_Catenacci et al v. Lightfoot_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:21-cv-02852)).

In dismissing the case, our attorneys noted
[[link removed]


As testified to by her Communications Director and as stated in her
motion to dismiss, Mayor Lori Lightfoot has no plans or intentions in
the future to exclusively provide one-on-one interviews with
journalists of color.
We filed the civil rights lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against Lightfoot
on May 27, 2021, after Catenacci, a white journalist, emailed
Lightfoot’s office requesting a one-on-one interview with the mayor.
The mayor’s office never replied to the request or to two additional
follow-up emails from Catenacci. Catenacci’s request came on one of
the days that the mayor admittedly was discriminating against
journalists based on race.

On May 18, 2021, Mayor Lightfoot’s office informed multiple
reporters that she would grant one-on-one interviews, “only to Black
or Brown Journalists
[[link removed]
The next day, the mayor released a letter
[[link removed]]
confirming her discriminatory policy. Our lawsuit alleged that
Lightfoot’s refusal to be interviewed by Catenacci was a violation
of the Daily Caller News Foundation’s and his First Amendment rights
and Catenacci’s right to equal protection.

On July 26, 2021, after the lawsuit was filed, Mayor Lightfoot told
_The New York Times_
[[link removed]]
that she would “absolutely” engage in racial discrimination again.
When pressed on the issue by our attorneys, her spokesperson testified
under oath
[[link removed]]
in this lawsuit that Mayor Lightfoot promised not to engage in any
more of this type of racial discrimination:

Q Okay. Have you spoken to the Mayor about whether she intends to
exclusively provide one-on-one interviews with journalists of color in
the future?

A Yes.

Q Okay. What did the Mayor tell you about that?

A She does not have plans to do so.

Q Does she intend to do so?

A No.
Mayor Lightfoot’s attorneys also told
[[link removed]]
the court the same thing in their most recent filing.
“I’m glad that Mayor Lightfoot finally realized that her racist
policy was untenable. I hope all elected officials take note of our
case and think twice before issuing similar policies,” Thomas
Catenacci said.

“It’s amazing and sad that we had to do this in America 2022. A
government official discriminating based on race is as wrong as it
gets. We are relieved that she finally relented,” Daily Caller News
Foundation President Neil Patel said.

It is incredible, in this day and age, that it took a federal civil
rights lawsuit to force Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot to retreat from
her racial discrimination against reporters.

CENSUS BUREAU KEEPS HIRING ‘UNSUITABLE INDIVIDUALS’ WITH CRIMINAL
RECORDS

The federal government seems to have little or no interest in
protecting you from felons it hires to conduct the census. Our
_Corruption Chronicles_ blog explains
[[link removed]]
that this has gone on for years with no corrective action.

Thirteen years after a federal investigation
[[link removed]]
blasted the U.S. Census
Bureau for hiring criminals to enter American homes to gather
statistics for the decennial count, a new audit
[[link removed]]
reveals the disturbing practice continues. In fact, more than a decade
after the problem was exposed workers for the 2020 count were not
properly vetted and many with criminal records had direct interactions
with the public. The most recent probe, conducted by the Department of
Commerce Inspector General, found that “dozens of employees who
worked on address canvassing in advance of the 2020 census had major
issues flagged on their investigations, which typically means
employees are automatically disqualified from their federal jobs.”

Chunks of the 28-page report are redacted but the gist is well
conveyed, that the Census Bureau has long failed to screen its
workforce and therefore endangers the public. It’s not like there
isn’t a vetting system in place. When one of the 248 regional
offices recruit a candidate, the Census Investigative Services (CIS)
at the agency’s headquarters in Suitland, Maryland is charged with
conducting a pre-employment suitability review. The process includes
sending fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and
a credit history as well as self-disclosed criminal record to CIS for
review. Nevertheless, the Bureau still hires felons—including sex
offenders—at regional offices nationwide. As an example, a few years
ago the Charlotte, North Carolina Area Census Office (ACO) employed a
man convicted of a felony
[[link removed]]
involving sex with a child as a regional recruiting manager because
despite his criminal record, he passed the Census Bureau’s
background check.

The Bureau’s negligent security practices have been on the radar of
federal lawmakers for years. Over a decade ago, Congressional
investigators slammed the agency for failing to adequately conduct
mandatory background checks for tens of thousands of workers,
resulting in the hiring of hundreds of violent criminals. At the time,
the probe found that more than 35,000 temporary census workers were
employed without the proper criminal background check, which includes
fingerprinting. That means that more than one-fifth of the canvassing
workforce did not get properly processed or fully screened for
employment eligibility, creating an obvious security risk. More than
200 of those were subsequently determined to have criminal records yet
were in constant contact with the public while canvassing for the 2010
census. Investigators said the criminal record checks were bungled
because the Census Bureau’s incompetent staff was poorly trained to
conduct them.

Twelve years ago Judicial Watch reported
[[link removed]]
that the Census Bureau knowingly hired a registered sex offender with
a long criminal history to make home visits even though such convicts
are banned from working for the agency. The embarrassing gaffe came to
light when a young mother in a New Jersey suburb recognized the census
worker who came to her home from the state’s registered sex offender
database. She initially thought it was safe to provide the man with
information because he was a legitimate government worker with a badge
and bag sporting the U.S. Census Bureau’s official logo. Incredibly,
the sex offender used a fake name to get the census job but failed a
fingerprint check after getting hired. The agency still let him to
complete four days of training and allowed him to visit homes even
though he did not pass the background check.

The latest audit, released last week, shows that virtually nothing has
changed after all these years and that the Bureau has done little to
improve its derelict hiring practices. Investigators found that at
least 6,802 census workers were not properly adjudicated, “resulting
in persons with significant issues working for the Bureau and, in some
instances, contacting households during the 2020 Census NRFU
[Nonresponse Followup] operation.” In cases when CIS adjudicators
actually vetted employees, the watchdog found that they often failed
to request necessary documentation to assess the severity of the
issues raised. Stressing that background checks are a critical process
to help protect the nation’s interests by establishing trust in the
federal workforce, the IG points out the obvious in its recent report:
“The lack of oversight increases the risk of unknowingly allowing
unsuitable individuals into positions of public trust, which could
cause harm to the bureau.”

HISTORIC JUDICIAL WATCH GERRYMANDER WIN COULD SET NATIONAL PRECEDENT

Mapping congressional districts to make it easier for one party to win
is hardly a new practice, but lately the courts have been throttling
the politicians' schemes. Michael Morrison, our chief investigative
reporter, provides an overview
[[link removed]]
in _Investigative Bulletin_:

The judge was not pulling any punches. Siding with Judicial Watch in a
challenge to a congressional redistricting plan cooked up by Democrats
dominating the Maryland state legislature, Judge Lynne
Battaglia—herself a Democrat—threw haymakers. The Democrat
redistricting map was an “extreme partisan gerrymander.” Democrats
had attempted to “suppress the voice of Republican voters.” It was
drawn up with “partisanship as predominant intent.” It violated
state constitutional provisions on equal protection and free speech.
It subordinated “constitutional criteria to political
consideration.”

It was out. Making history—for the first time, a Maryland court
ruled that a congressional redistricting plan violated the state
constitution—Judge Battaglia banned the use of the gerrymander map
and ordered the Maryland General Assembly back to the drawing board.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton hailed the decision. “This key
court victory against abusive partisan gerrymandering by Democrats in
Maryland could set a national precedent,” he said. Maryland Governor
Larry Hogan called it “an historic milestone.”

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit
[[link removed]]
on behalf
of twelve Maryland voters who objected to the state legislature’s
plan and was joined at trial by a second set of plaintiffs. The
argument? The gerrymandered maps diminished their right to participate
in a free and fair election on an equal basis with other Maryland
voters. The court agreed
[[link removed]].


The March ruling has begun to echo through the national debate. In New
York, in April, the state’s highest court rejected a new
redistricting map favored by Democrats dominating state politics. The
court ruled that the map violated a state prohibition on partisan
gerrymandering, saying it was created with “impermissible partisan
purpose.” Court observers say the Maryland case was discussed in
briefings and oral arguments in New York.

In 2019, the Supreme Court rejected political gerrymandering claims
brought solely under the federal Constitution. Since then, the battle
over redistricting has spread to state courts throughout the country.
According to experts surveyed by Judicial Watch, cases related to
gerrymandering and redistricting are underway in nineteen states.
Among the states are the electoral powerhouses Texas, Florida,
Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio. You can read about some of the
upcoming cases here
[[link removed]].


Tough anti-gerrymandering measures are one way to start cleaning up
dirty election practices, says Robert Popper, Judicial Watch’s
director of voting integrity efforts. Gerrymandering is a “method of
cheating [that] has been around for 200 years,” Popper told
[[link removed]]
journalist Tim Pool. “If you’re a state that doesn’t have an
anti-gerrymandering provision, then suddenly it’s a political issue.
Why don’t you? You want districts that are ugly and screwed up for
partisan advantage, you want to cheat opponents in state elections.”


In Maryland, the state legislature quickly capitulated in the face of
the court ruling and signed on to a new, fairer redistricting map. In
New York, redistricting has been turned over to a special master. But
Popper warns of trouble in states where political gerrymandering
survives, with partisan operatives possibly turning to “new,
computer-generated maps” that could become “so convoluted that’s
it’s effectively like you don’t have a district at all.” We’re
not there yet, says Popper. “But if we don’t deal with
gerrymandering, my prediction is, that’s coming.”

MEMORIAL DAY – WHY WE FIGHT

Memorial Day helps our nation focus on the ultimate sacrifice of
untold numbers of fellow Americans – Americans who gave their lives
to preserve and defend our God-given freedoms and our constitutional
republic.

As we honor those heroes, I’d like to draw your attention again to
the Veterans Day speech given in 1985 by then-President Ronald Reagan.
Much of his speech applies to Memorial Day, especially this portion,
which remains timely today:

And the living have a responsibility to remember the conditions that
led to the wars in which our heroes died. Perhaps we can start by
remembering this: that all of those who died for us and our country
were, in one way or another, victims of a peace process that failed;
victims of a decision to forget certain things; to forget, for
instance, that the surest way to keep a peace going is to stay strong.


Weakness, after all, is a temptation — it tempts the pugnacious to
assert themselves — but strength is a declaration that cannot be
misunderstood. Strength is a condition that declares actions have
consequences. Strength is a prudent warning to the belligerent that
aggression need not go unanswered.

Peace fails when we forget what we stand for. It fails when we forget
that our Republic is based on firm principles, principles that have
real meaning, that with them, we are the last, best hope of man on
Earth; without them, we’re little more than the crust of a
continent. Peace also fails when we forget to bring to the bargaining
table God’s first intellectual gift to man: common sense. Common
sense gives us a realistic knowledge of human beings and how they
think, how they live in the world, what motivates them. Common sense
tells us that man has magic in him, but also clay. Common sense can
tell the difference between right and wrong. Common sense forgives
error, but it always recognizes it to be error first.

We endanger the peace and confuse all issues when we obscure the
truth; when we refuse to name an act for what it is; when we refuse to
see the obvious and seek safety in Almighty. Peace is only maintained
and won by those who have clear eyes and brave minds.

I’d like to think many Americans have “clear eyes and brave
minds” and these patriots desire the same qualities in our political
and judicial leaders. It certainly reflects Judicial Watch’s modest
approach to our efforts.
Have a safe and blessed Memorial Day!

Until next week …





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU01"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2022, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]