Change to congressional district allocations?

Page 1 of 1 [ 7 posts ] 

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,237
Location: Melbourne, Australia

21 Jul 2020, 8:47 pm

An interesting presidential memorandum from Mr Trump - Not including illegal residents in population counts for allocation of congressional districts:

Quote:
President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum on Tuesday that would exclude undocumented immigrants from being counted in congressional districts when district lines are redrawn next year.

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/21/politics/white-house-census-undocumented-immigrants/index.html

It will be intersting to see how this goes, and whether it will have any impact.

From what I can see, there is likely going to be an interesting SCOTUS case from this:
- On one hand, according to the article, "The Constitution says congressional representation is apportioned based on "the whole Number of free Persons," not only those who are American citizens."
- On the other hand, SCOTUS in "United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez" (1990) seems to have limited "Persons" to exclude non-citizens (at least in the 4th amendment, with the same term likely to be expected to mean the same thing with regards to the 14th amendment).

Should this take effect, what would be the likely impact on the allocations (ie. would certain states be likely to lose seats to other states, and would this likely be a net benefit to one party over the other as a result)?

Source for this is via the following video, explaining how it may end up being decided:


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
"Never forget that you have every right to question any individual, system, movement, or group that only tolerates you when you think and behave exactly like them" - Africa Brooke

Quote:
“There was a saying that a man's true character was revealed in defeat. I thought it was also revealed in victory.”
― Alison Goodman, Eon: Dragoneye Reborn


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

21 Jul 2020, 9:13 pm

The 14th overwrites article 1, section 2 of the Constitution, meaning the original is completely moot. The 14th eliminates the 3/5th clause, and changes ‘free Persons’ to ‘whole number of persons’.
This issue was debated all the way back in the 1780s before the Constitution was even ratified. The founders had two problems: 1. How do you even define citizenship in a nation where no one was actually born when the nation was the founded, meaning all early inhabitants would not be citizens under a strict birth by geography definition and 2. How do you allocate federal resources fairly, when up to a quarter of the free population was transitory (English, French, and Dutch traders in coastal towns that weren’t colonists or citizens in the modern sense, but were vital to the nation’s trade). They settled on free Persons, acknowledging that these traders weren’t citizens but that the towns that housed them would require additional resources to function.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,237
Location: Melbourne, Australia

21 Jul 2020, 9:25 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
The 14th overwrites article 1, section 2 of the Constitution, meaning the original is completely moot. The 14th eliminates the 3/5th clause, and changes ‘free Persons’ to ‘whole number of persons’.
This issue was debated all the way back in the 1780s before the Constitution was even ratified. The founders had two problems: 1. How do you even define citizenship in a nation where no one was actually born when the nation was the founded, meaning all early inhabitants would not be citizens under a strict birth by geography definition and 2. How do you allocate federal resources fairly, when up to a quarter of the free population was transitory (English, French, and Dutch traders in coastal towns that weren’t colonists or citizens in the modern sense, but were vital to the nation’s trade). They settled on free Persons, acknowledging that these traders weren’t citizens but that the towns that housed them would require additional resources to function.


The question would come down to the definition of the word "persons": Can the definition for a word be different between the 4th and 14th ammendments (through use of the same word, it implies that there was no difference between groups included in both ammendments, as otherwise a different term\phrase would have been selected)?

And either way, does the definition as "clarified" with regards to that used in the 4th in "United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez" (1990) apply to the 14th (excluding "illegal aliens"), or will it be "clarified" again to include them (or some sub-set of the group)?

It will be interesting to see what happens (and if excluded, how the re-designation of congressional districts affects each state and party).


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
"Never forget that you have every right to question any individual, system, movement, or group that only tolerates you when you think and behave exactly like them" - Africa Brooke

Quote:
“There was a saying that a man's true character was revealed in defeat. I thought it was also revealed in victory.”
― Alison Goodman, Eon: Dragoneye Reborn


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

21 Jul 2020, 10:11 pm

Brictoria wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
The 14th overwrites article 1, section 2 of the Constitution, meaning the original is completely moot. The 14th eliminates the 3/5th clause, and changes ‘free Persons’ to ‘whole number of persons’.
This issue was debated all the way back in the 1780s before the Constitution was even ratified. The founders had two problems: 1. How do you even define citizenship in a nation where no one was actually born when the nation was the founded, meaning all early inhabitants would not be citizens under a strict birth by geography definition and 2. How do you allocate federal resources fairly, when up to a quarter of the free population was transitory (English, French, and Dutch traders in coastal towns that weren’t colonists or citizens in the modern sense, but were vital to the nation’s trade). They settled on free Persons, acknowledging that these traders weren’t citizens but that the towns that housed them would require additional resources to function.


The question would come down to the definition of the word "persons": Can the definition for a word be different between the 4th and 14th ammendments (through use of the same word, it implies that there was no difference between groups included in both ammendments, as otherwise a different term\phrase would have been selected)?

And either way, does the definition as "clarified" with regards to that used in the 4th in "United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez" (1990) apply to the 14th (excluding "illegal aliens"), or will it be "clarified" again to include them (or some sub-set of the group)?

It will be interesting to see what happens (and if excluded, how the re-designation of congressional districts affects each state and party).


To be honest, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this when they struck down the citizenship question in the census, June of last year. What the court ruled is that the question can't be asked because the Administration didn't offer any rationale for the change, as they had done on all previous 23 censuses. Roberts wrote the majority opinion and offered the Administration the option of providing a rationale for the inclusion but the Administration declined. Point being, there's not a citizenship question on the census therefor the Administration has no way of determining who's a citizen and who's not in their data set. What he's attempting to do will almost certainly be labeled 'capricious' by the court and overturned.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

23 Jul 2020, 12:15 am

I had not realized undocumented aliens were counted in Congressional districts anyway.

How could they be?There not known because they are not documented, therefore the government doesn't know they exist.
I don't get this.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,237
Location: Melbourne, Australia

23 Jul 2020, 12:48 am

vermontsavant wrote:
I had not realized undocumented aliens were counted in Congressional districts anyway.

How could they be?There not known because they are not documented, therefore the government doesn't know they exist.
I don't get this.


As I understand it, the number of districts per state is based on the state's "population" based on the census numbers. Should those in the country illegally be completing this, it would (theoretically) be inflating the population which would skew the number of districts and "penalize" those with smaller (or no) illegal residents (or who don't complete the census in those states).


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
"Never forget that you have every right to question any individual, system, movement, or group that only tolerates you when you think and behave exactly like them" - Africa Brooke

Quote:
“There was a saying that a man's true character was revealed in defeat. I thought it was also revealed in victory.”
― Alison Goodman, Eon: Dragoneye Reborn


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

23 Jul 2020, 1:08 am

When I got the census this year,I read
"Resident 127 ***** St."

The census people didn't know who I was,so I guess anyone could get it and lie and say there a citizen.

They likely would fill out the census because if you don't fill it out,people will come to your house and make you fill it out.And illegals would be scared of this for obvious reasons.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined