The debate over whether individuals in the U.S. without legal status should be included in census counts, crucial for determining the distribution of congressional seats, has been reignited. Despite Republican efforts to exclude these residents, recent research indicates that their inclusion has had minimal implications for the U.S. political landscape, specifically in presidential elections and congressional control.
A study conducted by two demographers from the University of Minnesota and the Center for Migration Studies of New York examines the potential shifts in political representation had these individuals been excluded from the census between 1980 and 2020. The findings suggest that no more than two House seats and three Electoral College votes would have changed partisan hands.
The inclusion of non-citizens has been described as 'negligible' concerning its effect on congressional control or presidential election outcomes. The U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment mandates counting the 'whole number of persons in each state' for apportionment purposes, supporting the Census Bureau's current practice of including all residents, regardless of legal status.
Some Republicans maintain that apportionment should solely consider citizens. A prominent argument is that relying on the citizen voting-age population rather than total population figures could prove advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites. As expressed by U.S. Rep. Chuck Edwards, R-NC, fair representation demands excluding non-citizens from influencing elections.
The debate gained momentum as attorneys general from Kansas, Louisiana, Ohio, and West Virginia pursued legal action to exclude undocumented individuals from apportionment counts. Concurrently, voters from California and Texas, alongside the Democratic-affiliated National Redistricting Foundation, have sought to intervene, citing potential harm to their representation should the lawsuit succeed.
Historically, efforts to alter census methodologies have seen significant political contention. During President Donald Trump's administration, there was a push to omit undocumented residents from the 2020 census apportionment totals. Despite a Supreme Court ruling dismissing the proposed introduction of a citizenship question, President Trump released two memos aimed at excluding non-citizens. Both directives were eventually revoked under President Joe Biden.
Presently, the number of House seats stands at a fixed 435, making apportionment a zero-sum game. The hypothetical exclusion of undocumented individuals would have seen notable differences across decades: In 1980, Indiana and Georgia might have gained seats, whereas California and New York would have lost. A similar pattern would emerge in subsequent decades, with varying states either benefiting or losing representation.
The data illustrates the potential domestic shifts under hypothetical exclusions across several decades. California and Texas, in particular, would've seen consistent losses in representation, while states like Montana and Ohio might have gained influence.
This ongoing discourse underscores the complexities of balancing fair representation with constitutional mandates in America's ever-evolving demographic landscape.