Judge Pauses Lawsuit Challenging Census Apportionment Method
A federal judge has agreed to put on hold a lawsuit filed by four Republican state attorneys general seeking to exclude undocumented immigrants from the population counts used for congressional apportionment. The lawsuit, which was filed in January during the final days of the Biden administration, argues that only U.S. citizens and legal residents should be included in the numbers used to allocate congressional seats and Electoral College votes among states. The delay in the case comes as the Trump administration’s lawyers requested more time to determine how to proceed with the litigation, given the recent changes in leadership at the U.S. Department of Commerce, which oversees the U.S. Census Bureau.
The Republican attorneys general from Kansas, Louisiana, Ohio, and West Virginia initiated the lawsuit against the Commerce Department, challenging the long-standing practice of including all individuals, regardless of immigration status, in the census counts used for apportionment. Since the filing of the lawsuit, significant changes have occurred within the Biden administration. For instance, the Biden-appointed director of the Census Bureau has resigned, and Trump-nominated Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has been confirmed by the Senate, replacing former Secretary Gina Raimondo, a Democrat. These changes have likely contributed to the request to pause the case while the new administration reviews its position.
Constitutional Arguments and the 14th Amendment
At the heart of the lawsuit is a constitutional debate over how to interpret the 14th Amendment, which states that “the whole number of persons in each state” should be counted for the purpose of apportioning congressional seats and Electoral College votes. The Republican attorneys general argue that the phrase “whole number of persons” should exclude individuals living in the U.S. illegally. However, opponents of the lawsuit contend that the Constitution explicitly requires counting all persons, regardless of their immigration status. This interpretation has been upheld by the U.S. Census Bureau for decades, as the census has traditionally included all residents, citizens and non-citizens alike, in its population counts.
The stakes are high, as the apportionment process determines not only the number of congressional seats each state receives but also the allocation of federal funding for various programs. If undocumented immigrants were excluded from the counts, states with larger undocumented populations, such as California and Texas, could lose congressional seats and Electoral College votes. This potential shift in political power has sparked intense debate and opposition from Democratic-leaning states and advocacy groups.
Democratic Voters Attempt to Intervene in the Case
In response to the lawsuit, a group of Democratic voters from California and Texas sought to intervene in the case, arguing that excluding undocumented immigrants from the apportionment counts would harm their states by reducing their congressional representation and Electoral College influence. However, the judge presiding over the case struck down their motion, ruling that they would need to refile their request once the legal proceedings resume. This decision underscores the complex and contentious nature of the lawsuit, as different stakeholders jockey for influence over the outcome.
Political Implications and the Broader Debate
The lawsuit reflects a broader Republican strategy to reshape the electoral landscape by altering how population counts are used in redistricting and apportionment. A Republican redistricting expert has argued that switching from total population counts to citizen voting-age population (CVAP) could benefit Republican candidates and non-Hispanic white communities. This approach, opponents argue, would dilute the political power of minority and immigrant communities, which are disproportionately represented in states with large undocumented populations.
The debate over census apportionment is not new. During his presidency, Donald Trump attempted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census form, a move that was ultimately blocked by the courts. Trump also issued executive orders aimed at excluding undocumented immigrants from the apportionment counts, but these were rescinded by President Joe Biden shortly after he took office in 2021. The current lawsuit represents the latest salvo in this ongoing political and legal battle over how to define and count the U.S. population for electoral purposes.
The Road Ahead
With the lawsuit on hold, the outcome remains uncertain. The Trump administration’s lawyers have indicated that they need time to assess their approach, given the recent changes in leadership at the Commerce Department. Meanwhile, Democratic-leaning states and advocacy groups are preparing to challenge any moves that could alter the traditional method of apportionment. The case has significant implications for the balance of political power in the U.S., as well as for the rights and representation of immigrant communities. As the litigation progresses, it will likely continue to be a lightning rod for debate over immigration, voting rights, and the Constitution.
In conclusion, the federal judge’s decision to pause the lawsuit gives the new administration time to decide how to proceed, but the underlying issues at play are far from resolved. The debate over how to count and represent the U.S. population will remain a contentious and politically charged issue, with far-reaching consequences for the future of American democracy.
