Republicans are making another push to exclude individuals who are in the U.S. unlawfully from the population counts used to allocate congressional seats among the states. However, a recent study indicates that excluding these individuals in the last four censuses would not have significantly affected the outcomes of presidential elections or congressional control.
The study conducted by demographers from the University of Minnesota and the Center for Migration Studies of New York shows that had residents without permanent legal status been omitted from the census data utilized in apportionment from 1980 to 2020, there would have been minimal shifts—specifically, a maximum of two seats in the House of Representatives and three Electoral College votes changing hands between the two major parties. According to the findings, the inclusion of undocumented immigrants has had a “negligible” impact on political party dominance in the House or the results of presidential votes.
This issue is significant considering the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which stipulates that “the whole number of persons in each state” should be counted for determining apportionment. This directive has led the U.S. Census Bureau to include all residents during the decennial censuses, irrespective of legal status, and rely on those figures for allocating congressional representation.
Some Republicans contend that only citizens should be eligible for consideration in apportionment numbers. A redistricting expert associated with the party suggested that using the citizen voting-age population for reshaping congressional districts might favor Republican interests and non-Hispanic white individuals. U.S. Representative Chuck Edwards from North Carolina expressed earlier this year that “Americans deserve fair and equal representation,” asserting that excluding noncitizens’ influence in elections is vital for achieving this goal.
Last month, Republican attorneys general from Kansas, Louisiana, Ohio, and West Virginia initiated a lawsuit aimed at preventing people in the U.S. illegally from affecting apportionment figures. In response, advocates in California and Texas, supported by the Democratic-aligned National Redistricting Foundation, seek to intervene, asserting that the lawsuit would undermine their congressional representation and Electoral College votes.
Historically, during his presidency, Donald Trump attempted to exclude those unlawfully present from the census numbers used for apportionment by signing an executive order and mandating the gathering of citizenship data through administrative means. These actions followed the Supreme Court’s decision to block a previous effort to add a citizenship query to the 2020 census, citing insufficient justification from the Trump administration.
Both of Trump’s directives were later undone when President Joe Biden took office in January 2021, just prior to the announcement of the 2020 census results. In a recent return to the political forefront, Trump rescinded Biden’s order, reviving his earlier stance.
Research indicates that, given that the House has a fixed number of 435 seats, the apportionment process operates as a zero-sum game. If those residing in the country illegally were excluded based on hypothetical scenarios, analysis shows several shifts in congressional representation across decades. For instance, in 1980, California and New York could have each lost one seat, while Indiana and Georgia would have gained one seat each.
In 1990, California would have seen a two-seat loss, while states like Texas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Montana would have gained significantly. The year 2000 would have similarly affected representation, with four states gaining while California and Texas each faced losses. Following the 2010 census, a range of states would have gained seats, although California would again face significant losses. After the 2020 census, both California and Texas could have each lost a seat, while states like Ohio and New York would have potentially gained one seat apiece.