HSIs Saved Again – Maybe But Not Being Noticed By President Trump

In 2019, three headlines said it’s all about the future of Hispanic-Serving Institutions:

• Sept. 27: ‘Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) set to lose $100 million”

• Nov. 25: “Funding for minority-serving colleges caught in the crossfire”

• Dec. 5 “After Lapse, Senate Renews Funding for Minority-Serving Institutions”

As most The Hispanic Outlook readers know, HSIs are eligible institutions of higher education that can document an enrollment of undergraduate full-time equivalent students that is at least 25% Hispanic at the end of the award year.  The focus of the new extension – H.R. 5363, the FUTURE Act – is to increase the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) “outcomes” – designation as a major, retention and graduation rates – assumedly of their Hispanic students. The bill also simplifies the process for applying for student financial aid.

Over the past three years, President Donald Trump has made much of his off-and-on-again criticisms and support of Historic Black Colleges and Universities. Many HCBUs are in financial trouble trying to maintain their own campuses and competing with other colleges for the best black high school graduates. HSIs are different, being part of an already established institution. Expanding its funding sources by recruiting and retaining Hispanic students is a win-win situation.  President Trump never mentions HSIs.  He may not really know about them. That might be an advantage.  As one Trump administrator told this Hispanic Outlook reporter off the record, “the key to a successful career under Trump is to do your job and stay under the radar.”

The Power Of The Hispanic Vote: The Facts That Really Matter

Readers be warned. As states with significant Hispanic populations hold their primary caucuses and elections, the media – like Pavlov’s dog – will predictably turn to their biannual analysis of “the Latino vote.” That analysis often will be comprised of a disconnected array of numbers and statements such as those in a full-page article in a popular Capitol Hill newspaper Feb 25 after the Nevada caucus.  It explained that “Sanders won about 70 percent of the Nevada Hispanic vote” … and that “like Nevada, Texas and California host a majority Mexican American Latino voter base.” “Texas Hispanic leaders have long complained about complicated voter registration systems” while “Many Hispanics in Florida are livid over Sander’s comments crediting Fidel Castro for improving health and education on the island” and “Puerto Ricans will respond to Sanders message of revolution.”

Analyzing the Hispanic vote can and should be much meatier than that. The basic facts needed to figure out the influence of the Hispanic vote in 2020 must first include how big the Hispanic population in the U.S. is – a record 60 million; and the number and percentage of the population who are eligible to vote – 49% or about 29 million. Then the percentage and number of other key factors must be considered, such as the Hispanic electorate who actually vote nationwide – 49% or about 14.5 million; the Hispanic voters who vote Democrat and Republican nationwide – estimated in 2020 to be about 65% Democrat; 30% Republican and 5% other; and each state’s electorate (NOT population) that identify as Hispanic.  States where the Hispanic electorate is over 10% of the total – about 10 state – should be analyzed: the top five are New Mexico, California, Texas, Arizona and Florida. The potential Hispanic vote in the six states that Democrats identify as “battleground” or “key swing” states – Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – must be included.  Obviously, Florida is the only key swing state with a significant Hispanic electorate – and that electorate is highly diverse in terms of age, national heritage and politics. It traditionally votes Republican.  The PEW Center has the best and most recent data.

SCOTUS May End Single Judges’ Power To Impose National Injunctions

It’s almost become normal.  When a controversial governmental action becomes politicized and is challenged – like the extension of the DACA program in Feb. 2015, and the establishment of numerous immigration enforcement and restriction measures by the Trump administration in 2016 – an advocacy group often takes the case to a single federal court judge whom they know to be friendly to their cause.  Increasingly, before the case is even heard, the friendly-to-the-case federal judge will issue an injunction – a stop order – of the action not only in the local case but to apply nationwide.  It’s called a “national” or “universal” injunction. “These universal injunctions cause a host of problems,” writes the Heritage Foundation. “They empower judges to exercise power over the entire government, rather than just the parties who brought a case before them. They undermine public confidence in the judiciary.  They give activists judges near limitless power to undo legal laws and policies. Defenders say universal injunctions are in some cases “the only means to provide plaintiffs with complete relief, or to prevent harm to thousands of individuals similarly who cannot quickly bring their own cases before the courts.”

Now in 2020, there are signs that the U.S. Supreme Court may be looking to end the power of a single judge to issue a national injunction. SCOTUS could include a restriction on universal injunctions in coming decisions this Spring, including in cases about the continuation of DACA or in Trump v. Pennsylvania about regulations forcing employers to provide contraceptive coverage against their religious principles. •

Margaret (Peggy Sands) Orchowski is the Credentialed Congressional Correspondent, Washington, D.C. for The Hispanic Outlook on Education Magazine and Senior Correspondent for The Georgetowner  (Peggy Sands) peggy@georgetowner.com   She is Author of “The Law That Changed The Face of America: The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965” (Rowman & Littlefield 2015);  and “Immigration and the American Dream: Battling the Political Hype and Hysteria” (Rowman & Littlefield Oct. 2008)