Immigrant districts

[memphis]

Considering that Congressional districts are drawn on population, but only citizens get to vote, aren't voters in areas with lots of immigrants (Rio Grande Valley, for example) getting over-representation? Does this seem unjust to anybody else. It's remarkable how few votes there are relative to population in some immigrant heavy areas.

[Padfoot]

As far as I know California, Texas, New York, and Florida are the only states that are overrepresented due to illegal immigrants.  Last year a Constitutional Ammendment was proposed by Rep. Candice Miller(R) from Michigan that would have counted only citizens as far as apportionment was concerned.  I beleive it never moved very far for several reasons.

1. Inaccuracy threshhold is high:  Those who are not citizens may be tempted to lie about their status since citizenship is likely to be perceived as the preferred status.  (This phenomenon has been observed several times with regards to other Census questions.)  It is estimated that the results would likely overstate the number of actual citizens within a state.

2. Short Form Requirement:  Because the question of citizenship would deal with apportionment it would have to be on the Census short form.  Thus, the Census would be required to do an expensive follow up if the question were left blank.

3. Current difficulties in obtaining an accurate count would likely be compounded by adding a new question with such importance.

4. The current language of the 14th Amendment which the bill sought to change frequently distinguishes between the rights of persons and citizens.  It is argued that if the intent were to protect the voting rights of citizens it would already say so in the 14th Amendment.

5. Redistricting difficulties:  In order for the amendment to acheive its desired goal, each congressional district would have to be drawn to contain equal numbers of citizens rather than people.  This means that the data would have to be accurate all the way down to street and neighborhood populations.  It would also create major headaches for redistricting officials attempting to draw districts in areas with a high level of immigrants.

In summary, I find it extremely unfair that certain states and voters are overrepresented due to their large immigrant populations.  however, there is no easy way to exclude non-citizens from the apportionment and redistricting processes.  I have proposed in another thread that apportionment should be based on the number of registered voters in a state since this a verifiable number and data would be readily available as to the adresses of registered voters.  Take a look at my maps here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=50388.0

[Hatman 🍁]

Instead of citizens, why not eligible voters instead? Why bother counting all the children and felons if they cant vote anyways. Im sure there are areas with higher numbers of children and felons that are overenfranchised.

[Alcon]

Instead of citizens, why not eligible voters instead? Why bother counting all the children and felons if they cant vote anyways. Im sure there are areas with higher numbers of children and felons that are overenfranchised.

They are "represented" too.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Instead of citizens, why not eligible voters instead? Why bother counting all the children and felons if they cant vote anyways. Im sure there are areas with higher numbers of children and felons that are overenfranchised.

They are "represented" too.

that they are, even if they can't vote.

Also, illegal aliens aren't counted in the census, nor are people in the US on non-resident visas, and  therefore don't figure into apportionment statistics.

[Padfoot]

Instead of citizens, why not eligible voters instead? Why bother counting all the children and felons if they cant vote anyways. Im sure there are areas with higher numbers of children and felons that are overenfranchised.

They are "represented" too.

that they are, even if they can't vote.

Also, illegal aliens aren't counted in the census, nor are people in the US on non-resident visas, and  therefore don't figure into apportionment statistics.

Yes they are.  Any person living in the US is counted in the Census and figured into the apportionment data.  Thats why there was a proposed amendment to the Constitution aimed at ending this practice and counting only citizens.  Please see my earlier post for reasons why it didn't go anywhere in Congress.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Instead of citizens, why not eligible voters instead? Why bother counting all the children and felons if they cant vote anyways. Im sure there are areas with higher numbers of children and felons that are overenfranchised.

They are "represented" too.

that they are, even if they can't vote.

Also, illegal aliens aren't counted in the census, nor are people in the US on non-resident visas, and  therefore don't figure into apportionment statistics.

Yes they are.  Any person living in the US is counted in the Census and figured into the apportionment data.  Thats why there was a proposed amendment to the Constitution aimed at ending this practice and counting only citizens.  Please see my earlier post for reasons why it didn't go anywhere in Congress.

In that case, I apologize for my error. However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to draw districts according to number of citizens vs number of ppl or number of registered voters. Also consider that some states (Minnesota is the only one I can recall off-hand) have walk-in voter registration.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also consider that some states (Minnesota is the only one I can recall off-hand) have walk-in voter registration.

North Dakota also does not have voter registration.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Areas like NYC still have massive undercounts.

[phk]

Would bet on the San Joaquin Valley having some undercount going on.