California Would Lose Seats Under Census Change

New York Times:

A Republican senator's proposal to count only United States citizens when reapportioning Congress would cost California five seats and New York and Illinois one each, according to an independent analysis of census data released Tuesday. Texas, which is projected to gain three seats after the 2010 census, would get only one.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[MNTom]

This will be a big topic next election cycle. Small Red states will gain if this passes. The Liberal Blue States will get screwed. This will be how the GOP will regain power again.

[Tiger99]

So by following the Constitution people get screwed? The only people getting screwed are the people whose #'s aren't over-inflated from illegal immigrant populations... It would seem some have way to many Congressional Seats and Electoral Votes...

[bzb]

Funny, the Republicans don't want them counted and yet they still have to pay taxes. Give me a break.

[tommy8]

Do you want to let them vote too?

Give me a break.

[bzb]

It will never work as this is another attempt by the red states to gain more seats.

[jay1975]

Power to the people, not those breaking the law.

[wdw505]

good sounds like a plan.........as a state if you protect and hide illegals it should cost you both in representation and money

[Halfwit]

Who in the world cares about what Vitter wants?
He would have to amend the constitution, and that ain't gonna happen.

[Bubba Gump]

PART TWO:

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html#14

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­-----

Notice the word "citizens" was referenced in both sections, and used to establish apportionment (immediately following the asterisk in Section 2). As much as I personnally dislike Senator Vitter, in this case, I agree with him.

P.S. Sorry Part Two is out of order from Part One. How long does it take to read 5 comments and post or delete them?

[koppenberg]

The references to citizen in Section 2 have nothing to do with the census enumeration.

That amendment reaffirms that the census counts persons, not citizens.

[koppenberg]

As well as confirming that due process and equal protection must be afforded by the states to all persons, not just citizens.

[Twopennygal]

Huh? It doesn't say to count only male citizens or even only citizens.

It says to count everyone, except non-taxed Indians. Then it says that if voting is denied to any male citizens, other than by reason of rebellion or crime, then the total number will be reduced by a proportionate amount based on those denied the vote.

By your rekoning it would also be saying that women and children are not counted.

[noaxe397]

If the non citizens are paying taxes, then they are entitled to representation. We fought a war over that one.

Now you see why the founders used the word "person" and not "citizen." There is no doubt what a person is but the definition of citizen is open to Rovian circular logic, ie. native citizen, natural born citizen, American citizen, white citizen.

This is another attempt at Republican election fraud. They can't win so they want to change the rules. I never remember Dems compalining about CA's electoral votes when Republicans won the state.

Last year there was a statewide proposition to apportion CA EVs proportionally according to who won the congressional district. It failed. But it will be back.

Actually, I don't think the plan hurts Dems either way; they will still need the equivalent of 277 EVs to win in 2012 (not literally, because 270 is needed) but demographically due to population shifts.

Now you know why the founders, in the Declaration of Independence, said all men are endowed by THEIR Creator. Not THE Creator or MY Creator or NATIONAL Creator.

Imagine the chaos if the founders changed that one word?

[Lyr]

If they are here in violation of the law they are not entitled to representation.

[koppenberg]

That's not what the Constitution says.

[Bubba Gump]

PART ONE:

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.



Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.



Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Twopennygal]

Again, there are protections for citizen in the first half and then switches to protections for "any person [...] within its jurisdiction..." If it goes so far as to explicitly provide protections for "citizens" and then explicity "any person," those are different protections and an acknowledgement that non-citizens have rights as "any person."

[CheGuevara]

If the Republican congressional delegation from California votes for this, I think I can already guess which party's 5 seats will be eliminated as part of reapportionment...

Vitter's doing this to shore up the base in the face of what promises to be an extremely ugly re-election fight.

[Grunty1]

After the number of seats is deteremined, technically ALL seats are eliminated

[Ifticar2]

Non citizens should be counted so that we know who is here and where they are. However, only citizens should be counted for the purpose of apportioning for congressional seats.

If non citizens are counted for apportionment one could imagine a congressional district made up entirely of non-citizens except for one. That one would be the congressman who voted for himself. This is a far fetched situation but it does illustrate the problem.

[Bubba Gump]

Well said! I agree, whole heartedly.

I would like to add one compassionate plea for non-citizens. Funding for projects, such as roads/bridge construction, school districts, hospitals, and so on, should reflect total usage. We must have both American citizens-only tallied on one column, legal residents and illegal immigrants on others. We can't sustain our civilization if we play peek-a-boo with the Census statistics and funding.

[tippytoejoe]

Excellent. I agree 100%.

[rbchilds]

Agree 100%

[Lyr]

The situation you describe was basically how the south's congressional representation went during slavery. Counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person gave the south more political power than they would have had if the slaves were not counted at all.

[thepoliticalcat]

Oh, so resident aliens, legal aliens, and immigrants waiting for status change are only good enough to pay taxes? But not get any benefits therefrom. Thanks a lot, Senator.

[rbchilds]

Ask yourself these questions, Do they now have the privilege to vote? The answer is no. Should states with large populations of non-citizens be allowed to have greater representation in our government than states without these non-citizen populations? Assuming both states have the same number of citizens, the state with the large non-citizen base would have more representation in the House, Is this good? Seems to me the state without the large non-citizen population is not be represented fairly. This is not about benefits, it is about appropriation of House member representation of the states and electoral votes.

[koppenberg]

Read the Constitution and see what it says.

It very clearly uses the word "citizen" in some areas and "person" in others. With respect to the census, it uses the latter and heck, even includes enumerating slaves who are obviously not citizens with voting rights (albeit as 3/5 of a person).

Vitter's proposal is clearly unconstitutional.

[swift goat pet for truth]

Less power to populated states.
More power to rural areas.

Thank goodness this is only a GOPer proposal.
So far.