OPINION:
Is it fair and proper to count noncitizens to divide national political power, such as seats in the House of Representatives and votes in the Electoral College? The House just voted on this issue and decided that noncitizens should not be counted.
The bill now moves to the Senate, where the opposing party controls the majority. If Democrats are serious about showing they care about the crisis at the southern border — as news reports indicate they’ve been trying to do because of the political fallout — they should prove it by taking up and passing the Equal Representation Act.
Let’s review.
Under current law, states with a higher proportion of noncitizens among their populations are rewarded — the more noncitizens they host, the greater their population, and therefore the greater their representation in the House and the greater the number of votes the state casts in the Electoral College. That’s unfair, and that’s why the House voted last week to pass the Equal Representation Act.
Introduced earlier this year by freshman Republican Chuck Edwards of North Carolina — with a companion measure introduced in the Senate by freshman Republican Bill Hagerty of Tennessee — the bill would amend current law to do two things: First, reinstate a citizenship question on the Census questionnaire, and second, amend the law so that only the count of citizens would be used for purposes of congressional reapportionment and the redistribution of votes in the Electoral College.
Some might think this is a maneuver by red state Republicans to recapture power from blue state Democrats. Not so fast. A study by the Pew Center before the most recent Census showed that if the resulting reapportionment had been done after excluding illegal aliens from the count, California would have lost two seats instead of one, Florida would have gained only one seat instead of two, and Texas would have gained only two instead of three.
On the other side of the coin, Alabama, Minnesota and Ohio each would have held on to a seat they were projected to lose. (In the actual reapportionment, California lost the one seat it was expected to lose, but Florida gained only one, and Texas gained only two; Alabama and Minnesota each escaped the loss of a seat, but Ohio was not as lucky.) Excluding illegal aliens from the count would have shrunk the political power of the red states rather than increased it.
Besides, the results of the most recent reapportionment, three years ago, show that red states are doing fine under the current regime. Of the 14 seats that shifted (Texas gained two, and Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon gained one seat each, while California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia each lost one seat), five seats were gained by reliably red states, while just two seats were gained by reliably blue states.
On the other hand, of the seven seats that were lost, five of them were lost by reliably blue states (California, Illinois, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania) while just two were lost by reliably red states (Ohio and West Virginia). That’s a six-seat (and six-electoral-vote) net gain for the red states under the current regime, where even noncitizens are counted.
Nevertheless, former President Donald Trump’s administration attempted to add a citizenship question to the Census questionnaire. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross — whose Cabinet department is the parent agency of the U.S. Census Bureau — tried to add the citizenship question himself but was sued, and in 2019, lost the case in the Supreme Court, which held that he had acted in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
But even as Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority ruling struck down Mr. Ross’ act, it left the door open for congressional action. Contrary to the argument made by opponents of adding the citizenship question, The chief justice wrote: “The Enumeration Clause permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary [of Commerce], to inquire about citizenship in the census questionnaire.”
He went on to note: “Every census between 1820 and 2000 (with the exception of 1840) asked at least some of the population about their citizenship or place of birth. Between 1820 and 1950, the question was asked of all households. Between 1960 and 2000, it was asked of about one-fourth to one-sixth of the population.”
So the Supreme Court has settled the question — Congress does have the authority under the Constitution to reinstate the citizenship question that was regularly asked in almost every census for almost two centuries. The question is, should Congress do that? And if a citizenship question is reinstated, should Congress use the information gathered to reapportion congressional districts and votes in the Electoral College by using the count that counts only U.S. citizens and excludes noncitizens?
Yes. It’s just common sense.
Consider: If we were a small enough country with a small enough population, we would live in a democracy. All citizens — and only citizens — would vote on each question of public policy.
But we don’t live in a democracy because we’re too large a country. Instead, we live in a republic, electing people to represent us in a far-off legislature. By casting a vote and participating in the choice of which individual will represent us, voters are engaging in a process that transfers a portion of their individual sovereignty to the elected official to act on their behalf. The act of representation is directly tied to the voters the elected official represents — his or her constituents. (That includes the young children of their constituents, who have not yet reached the proper age to be entrusted with the responsibility of voting.)
By definition, the elected official represents citizens and only citizens.
Since only citizens can vote in federal elections, only citizens are being represented, and since only citizens are being represented, only citizens should be counted. Failure to limit representation only to citizens violates the understanding of individual sovereignty and representation that makes our republic function.
The House has passed the Equal Representation Act. The Senate should follow suit.
• Bill Pascoe has been defending and promoting liberty for more than 40 years.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.