“The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing—one person, one vote.”1 The true essence of what these authorities represent invites us to consider how they can only mean something else—one citizen, one vote. In 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the total population for the upcoming 2020 census would include all individuals residing in the U.S., regardless of citizenship.2 As of June 2023, the population of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. is estimated at 16.8 million.3 This excludes a horrific year for the U.S. border in 2024.4 After the Rucho v. Common Cause decision, the federal government has turned a blind eye to political tactics surrounding the census and redistricting,5 posing a big problem for the integrity of elections.

The political manipulation of census data and redistricting practices leveraged through the ongoing open-border crisis represents a form of federal gerrymandering. By intentionally changing the electoral boundaries to benefit political interests, this manipulation undermines the democratic process, violates the principle of fair representation, and threatens the integrity of future elections. It grants the executive branch disproportionate power over congressional mapping, making this issue crucial to protecting constitutional guarantees of equal representation.

The total U.S. population count is used for congressional and Electoral College apportionment.6 The Supreme Court has determined that all persons residing in the U.S. are counted, including illegal aliens and noncitizens.7 The Constitution mandates redistricting every ten years based on census data.8 When millions of noncitizens are added to the population count, it inflates, distorts, and reshapes congressional district maps.9 Districts with inflated counts gain more representatives in the House, while districts with predominantly U.S. citizens may lose seats. This brings us to gerrymandering, defined as “the practice of drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage over its rivals.”10

Traditionally associated with state power, gerrymandering originates from former Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, who in 1812 enacted legislation that unfairly misrepresented the Federalist Party.11 In 2019, Chief Justice Roberts delivered a five to four majority opinion ruling that partisan gerrymandering presents political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts, effectively closing the door on federal judicial intervention in partisan gerrymandering cases.12 According to the majority, it is up to state legislatures, not the federal courts, to determine when gerrymandering has gone too far.13

The Rucho decision opened the door to unchecked electoral strategies, particularly for presidential administrations to direct significant populations of noncitizens toward swing states without any judicial oversight. During the Biden administration, large masses of illegal immigrants were directed toward swing states, such as Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania.14 It is not far-fetched to imagine state actors being used as Presidential pawns to achieve the goals of gerrymandering. As Representative Yvette Clarke (D-NY) remarked during a 2021 hearing, her district “can absorb a significant number of these migrants,” adding, “I need more people in my district just for redistricting purposes.”15 Similarly, Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) opposed removing noncitizens and illegal aliens from the census, stating that “it would clearly be a disadvantage to Democrats.”16 This type of subterfuge, occurring amidst a self-imposed open-border crisis, exemplifies “federal gerrymandering”—a new form of manipulation at the federal level. While this is completely uninterrupted after Rucho, the implications it will have on the country are deeply concerning.

As of May 8, 2024, the Equal Representation Act passed the House of Representatives and awaits Senate approval.17 The Act sets out the following criterion for the 2030 Census and each decennial census thereafter: “[1] to require a citizenship question on the decennial census, [2] to require reporting on certain census statistics, and [3] to modify apportionment of Representatives to be based on United States citizens instead of all individuals.”18 The constitutionality of this bill hinges on the intent of the Framers. Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment states:

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 . . . 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 . . . 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.19

The pride of being a United States citizen ought to mean something, and this includes the right to vote without having that right abridged through manipulation by one’s own elected representatives. The possibility of fear and nonresponse to the census from households with undocumented individuals does not hold weight; H.R.7109 would introduce a citizenship checkbox, providing a basic understanding of the U.S. population.20 Furthermore, the argument that including noncitizens in the census contributes to more federal resources and GDP is a flawed concept that essentially throws good money after bad.

The goal here is not perfection, or as the Supreme Court has stated, “draw[ing] congressional districts with mathematical precision.”21 Instead, it is about safeguarding the fundamental principles of democracy that grant equal representation for every citizen. The manipulation of electoral boundaries through census data and redistricting threatens not only the integrity of our electoral system but also the trust that citizens place in the voting process. The argument that Democrats have not gained seats in the House because of illegal immigration is preposterous—this assertion relies on 2020 Census data, which was collected before Biden’s ineffective and incompetent handling of the U.S. border.

The issue of federal gerrymandering reflects a prioritization of political gain over individual rights, masked as virtuous liberation. The federal courts must step in to prevent this manipulation, ensuring that the interests of true Americans take precedence over partisan ambitions. Upholding the constitutional promise of one citizen, one vote requires vigilance and action against those who continue to distort our democracy for their own ends. Only through judicial involvement and vicarious representation can we protect the principles of fairness and equality that are vital to the life of our republic.

References:

1 Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381 (1963).

2 Evenwel v. Abbott, 578 U.S. 54 (2016).

3 Fair Immigration Reform Movement, How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? (2023 Update), FAIR, (June 22, 2023), https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/202306/2023%20Illegal%20Alien%20Population%20Estimate_2.pdf.

4 American Immigration Council, Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy, AIC, (Oct. 2, 2024), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/mass-deportation.

5 Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684, 699 (2019).

6 U.S. Const. art. I, § 2.

7 Evenwel, 578 U.S. at 54.

8 U.S. Const. art. I, § 2.

9 Evenwel, 578 U.S. at 54.

10 Brian Duignan, Gerrymandering, Britannica (Sep. 21, 2024).

11 Id.

12 Rucho, 588 U.S. at 699.

13 Id.

14 American Immigration Council, New Data Analysis: Immigrants Driving

Opportunity, Prosperity in the U.S., Including in Swing States, AIC, (June 5, 2024), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/new-data-immigrants-driving-prosperity-in-united-states-2022.

15 Lora Ries & RJ Haufman, Stop Allowing Noncitizens to Determine Congressional and Presidential Representation, The Heritage Foundation, (Feb. 8, 2024), https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/stop-allowing-noncitizens-determine-congressional-and-presidential.

16 Bill Haggerty, Equal Representation Act, Bill Haggerty, U.S. Senator for Tennessee, (May 16, 2024).

17 Equal Representation Act, H.R. 7109, 118th Cong. (2024).

18 Id.

19 U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3.

20 Equal Representation Act, H.R. 7109, 118th Cong. (2024).

21 Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 18 (1964).