As was noted last week, California enjoys more representatives in the House of Representatives than it deserves due to its burgeoning illegal alien population. Based on the 2010 census, it is estimated that California has 7 to 8 more seats in the House than they would have if apportionment were based on the number of citizens rather than the total population.
Counting illegals in California in the census to inflate representation has been going on for a long time. Money and power are at work here. Today the elected representatives there declare their district a “sanctuary” area which attracts more illegals. This creates an endless cycle where House seats are being “stolen” at the expense of states that follow the law.
It certainly seems that allowing non-citizens to be included in the count to determine the number of House seats for each state is not fair. It appears to violate the principle of “One Man, One Vote” that is enshrined in multiple Supreme Court decisions. As the Congressional Research Service noted:
Districts with large numbers of non-citizens provide a victory threshold for an election that is substantially lower than one with few non-citizens.
What does the Constitution say about apportionment? Perhaps the most instructive information comes from the 14thAmendment. This is often referred to as the “Equal Protection” amendment. The amendment specifically addresses apportionment.
It consists of five sections, two of which are germane to this discussion.
It defines who is a citizen. This overcomes the three-fifths slave count problem that existed in counts before the Civil War. It also made clear that former slaves were citizens (“All persons born…”).
In Section 2 it makes clear that apportionment should depend on the number of people who have the right to vote. This certainly gives a strong indication that apportionment should be done based on the number of citizens in each state. Again this coincides with the “One Man, One Vote” principle of multiple Supreme Court decisions.
Of course, the “male” designation has been overcome with the 19thAmendment which provided suffrage for women. The “21 years old” requirement has been superseded by the 26thAmendment.
The citizenship question has been on the census in one form or another for a long time. The Obama administration removed for the 2010 census. Why? Were they trying to hide the skewing of representation in the House? Were they trying to hide the fact that “lawless” states were benefiting in the accumulation of House seats (and therefore political power)? Districts with large numbers of illegal aliens tend to be strongly Democratic.
Is it time to revisit how apportionment is done? “One Man, One Vote” should be the law of the land for how the House is apportioned.