Judicial Watch is a nonpartisan, public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, and it announced Thursday, May 28, that it had finally obtained U.S. Census Bureau documents detailing substantial involvement of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in the 2010 Census.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents after filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Census Bureau on March 23, 2009, but after the Obama Commerce Department stonewalled releasing the information, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on May 14, 2009. The documents were released to Judicial Watch the next day, on May 15, 2009. I guess sometimes Team Obama's so-called and much touted "transparency" only happens after they're sued for it. 

In an official statement, the Obama Commerce Department discounted ACORN's participation in the Census, labeling the idea that ACORN would be involved in any Census count as "baseless." However, the Census Bureau had offered ACORN the opportunity to "recruit Census workers" who would participate in the count. Oh, so I guess one step removed makes it all okey-dokey. Not likely any influence peddling there, I'm sure!

Moreover, as an "executive level partner," ACORN has the ability to "organize and/or serve as a member on a Complete Count Committee," which, according to Census documents, helps "develop and implement locally based outreach and recruitment campaigns." Well, we already know that ACORN is all about "locally based outreach and recruitment campaigns," even alleged illegal ones.

Included among the documents is ACORN's original Census partnership application. The document describes 18 different areas of responsibility requested by the community organization, which is under investigation in multiple states for illegal activity during the 2008 election, including voter registration fraud. It's also strange that the documents show the decision to add ACORN as a partner occurred in February, long after the January 15th Census partnership application deadline. One can only surmise, then, that ACORN was given the "favor" of an exception, or extension, by someone.....in the Census Bureau.....or the Commerce Department.....or the White House.

Other conclusions from the documents:

a. The Census Bureau requested that ACORN "help us highlight [ACORN's] innovation and hard work and share best practices so other organizations can learn from your experiences." In what, fraudulent voter registration practices? Employing previously convicted felons to coerce people into signing multiple and therefore fraudulent voter registration applications? Intimidating banks into making risky loans by physically interrupting their board meetings, or by staging protests outside their places of business, or by following employees to their homes? 

b. Members of the Census Bureau and Department of Commerce staff assigned to organize the 2010 Census were evidently unaware of when the decision to involve ACORN was made, how the Census Bureau chooses and defines partners, or whether partners are paid. Oh, well, if the Census Bureau or the Department of Commerce staffs didn't know when ACORN was brought on board as an "executive level partner," then I guess that answers the question of where that "favorable" application exception or extension must have come from, because only the White House is left in the decision chain.

And if the Census Bureau and Department of Commerce staffs didn't know how the Census Bureau chooses and defines partners, or whether partners are paid, then I guess that means they just don't know what they're doing. Let's see, neither staff knows what it's doing but good old ACORN is going to be right there, as an "executive level partner," to help them. So, I guess that means the 2010 Census is off to a really good start.

c. Unless a preliminary name check provided a match, the Census Bureau did not conduct background checks on the 3.7 million people hired to conduct the 2000 Census. Overall, 8 percent of the applicants, or over 300,000 of the people who assisted in conducting the 2000 Census, were considered "risks for hire." I wonder how many (more) that will be with ACORN's involvement this time?

The Census is more important than many citizens realize. One, it's only conducted once every ten years, so whatever it concludes and publishes has pretty lasting effects. Two, among other things, Census data are used to allocate $300 billion in federal funds to the states. Three, and possibly the most important and far-reaching, the Census "determines how many seats each state will have in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as the redistricting of state legislatures, county and city councils, and voting districts." Read that underlined part again. That means Census data affect our governments at all levels, from the federal right down to the district and city or town in which you live and the place where you go to vote.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, "Given its history of illegal activity and fraud, ACORN should be nowhere near the 2010 Census." He also said, "And shame on the Obama Commerce Department for continuing to demonize conservatives by lumping together law enforcement and anti-immigration groups with 'hate groups.' This discriminatory policy raises First Amendment concerns. Indeed, these documents provide further evidence that the Obama administration is politicizing the 2010 Census."

Politicizing the 2010 Census? Why, Team Obama would never politicize anything, would they? Much less something as important, impactful and far-reaching as the once-in-ten-years Census, right? The involvement of the federally investigated ACORN; Team Obama previously stating it would run the 2010 Census out of the White House, at least when a Republican was up for Secretary of Commerce; Obama's appointment of Robert Groves, a survey researcher at the University of Michigan who supports controversial methods of counting heads where workers estimate the number of individuals in a given area using statistical sampling and who thinks this is a better method of counting illegals who may confuse census workers with law enforcement officials and avoid them -- do you really think any or all of this means Team Obama may be politicizing (read: trying to manipulate and control) the 2010 Census?

And nowhere in the Constitution is the word "Census" used, anyway. It says, in Article I, Section 2, dealing with the legislative branch and the basis upon which the number of U.S. Representatives will be determined, that: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ... within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of Free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons (the three fifths reference to slaves was later changed by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment). The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct." So, in the Constitution, the Census of today is called an "actual enumeration," or, as defined by the dictionary, a counting -- not a statistical estimation, but a counting.    

So, in view of all of this, conservatives who claim Groves' method of estimating instead of counting is politically motivated and will result in over-counting the number of Democrats in the U.S. (legal and illegal -- or "documented" and "undocumented"), or that Team Obama is politicizing the Census -- why, they must just be looking for something to complain about, right? R-i-i-i-g-h-t!

And if you believe that, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.