Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I think it would be pretty reasonable to make it all citizens when deciding how much representation each area gets. Why should the number of non-citizens living in an area change the amount of electoral influence an area gets
|
I would say it so that areas get proper "strength" of representation. Each rep tries in theory to make or support or change legislation in ways that represent the interests of their population regardless of if they voted or not. Kids can't vote but their interests should be considered. People in jail can't vote, people temporarily or permanently in the country but haven't got citizenship can't vote, and they all need their interests considered. In a way I think the argument about money applies here as well, in the same way that people who can't vote still incur costs, they also incur other needs that should be represented.
I can see both sides having some merit though.
And ultimately it's what the Constitution says that goes. The census doesn't include a citizenship question, I think it'll be really easy to challenge whatever Trump does to fudge the numbers on the process alone.
And the census data is given to Congress who does the rest, do they even have an obligation to consider his numbers, could they just use the numbers before his additions...