[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COUNTING THE VOTE: SHOULD ONLY U.S. CITIZENS BE INCLUDED IN
APPORTIONING OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM
AND THE CENSUS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 6, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-119
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-074 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent)
------ ------
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
------ ------
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
John Cuaderes, Staff Director
Ursula Wojciechowski, Professional Staff Member
Juliana French, Clerk
Adam Bordes, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 6, 2005................................. 1
Statement of:
Bensen, Clark, consultant and publisher, Polidata Co.; Steven
Camarota, director of research, Center for Immigration
Studies; and Lawrence Gonzalez, Washington director,
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials.................................................. 28
Bensen, Clark............................................ 28
Camarota, Steven......................................... 41
Gonzalez, Lawrence....................................... 53
Miller, Hon. Candice S., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan...................................... 10
Prewitt, Kenneth, Carnegie professor of public affairs,
School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia
University; Johnny H. Killian, senior specialist, American
constitutional law, American Law Division, Congressional
Research Service; James G. Gimpel, professor of government,
University of Maryland, College Park; Andrew C.
Spiropoulos, professor of law, Oklahoma City University
School of Law; and Nina Perales, Southwestern regional
counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational
Fund....................................................... 71
Gimpel, James G.......................................... 88
Killian, Johnny H........................................ 82
Perales, Nina............................................ 120
Prewitt, Kenneth......................................... 71
Spiropoulos, Andrew C.................................... 111
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bensen, Clark, consultant and publisher, Polidata Co.,
prepared statement of...................................... 31
Camarota, Steven, director of research, Center for
Immigration Studies, prepared statement of................. 43
Gimpel, James G., professor of government, University of
Maryland, College Park, prepared statement of.............. 90
Gonzalez, Lawrence, Washington director, National Association
of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, prepared
statement of............................................... 55
Killian, Johnny H., senior specialist, American
constitutional law, American Law Division, Congressional
Research Service, prepared statement of.................... 84
Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 7
Miller, Hon. Candice S., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan, prepared statement of............... 14
Perales, Nina, Southwestern regional counsel, Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, prepared
statement of............................................... 122
Prewitt, Kenneth, Carnegie professor of public affairs,
School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia
University, prepared statement of.......................... 75
Sanchez, Hon. Linda T., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 135
Spiropoulos, Andrew C., professor of law, Oklahoma City
University School of Law, prepared statement of............ 113
Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio, prepared statement of................... 3
COUNTING THE VOTE: SHOULD ONLY U.S. CITIZENS BE INCLUDED IN
APPORTIONING OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES?
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:57 a.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael R.
Turner (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Turner, Dent, Foxx, and Maloney.
Also present: Representatives Miller of Michigan, and Linda
T. Sanchez of California.
Staff present: John Cuaderes, staff director; Ursula
Wojciechowski, professional staff member; Juliana French,
clerk; John Heroux, counsel; Peter Neville, fellow; Adam Bordes
and Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff members; and
Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.
Mr. Turner. Call to order the Government Reform
Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census. A quorum being
present, this hearing of the Subcommittee on Federalism and the
Census will come to order.
Welcome to the subcommittee's oversight hearing entitled,
``Counting the Vote: Should Only U.S. Citizens Be Included in
Apportioning Our Elected Representatives?'' We are here today
to discuss a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would
change how the Census Bureau determines the enumeration for the
purposes of apportioning the U.S. House of Representatives.
The 14th amendment states, ``Representatives of the House
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.'' In other words,
all individuals residing in the United States on Census Day,
except for nontaxed Indians must be enumerated to determine the
apportionment base.
The issue of whether noncitizens should be included in the
apportionment base has received considerable congressional
attention in the past. In 1940, for example, Representative
Celler of New York said on the floor of the House, ``The
Constitution says that all persons shall be counted. I cannot
quarrel with the Founding Fathers. They said that all should be
counted. The only way we can exclude anyone would be to pass a
constitutional amendment.''
Most legal scholars agree with the view of Representative
Celler that any attempt to exclude noncitizens from enumeration
must be accomplished by a constitutional amendment. That is
what Representative Candice Miller has proposed by introduction
of House Joint Resolution 53. This measure is a straightforward
proposal to distinguish citizens of the United States from the
total populations for purposes of determining the apportionment
base.
I am willing to wager that many, if not most, Americans
think that is exactly how it is done today and would be shocked
to learn that noncitizens, especially those in the country
illegally, have an impact on apportioning the membership of the
House of Representatives.
Regardless of possible popular belief, there may be some
very compelling reasons why the Framers used the word
``persons'' instead of the word ``citizens'' or ``voters'' when
they crafted the 14th amendment. The primary question before us
today is if H.J. Res. 53 is adopted by Congress and ratified by
the States, how would things be different?
We have several witnesses today that may provide the
subcommittee some insight into what the political landscape
would have looked like in the past if the census excluded
noncitizens, what it might look like after the 2010 census if
H.J. Res. 53 is adopted. I think you will find this testimony
most interesting.
This hearing has been structured in such a way that the
subcommittee will first hear from Congresswoman Miller so that
we she may describe her proposal. Subsequent to her testimony,
she will join us as a member of the subcommittee in listening
and questioning the other witnesses.
The subcommittee will then hear from a second panel
comprised of two esteemed demographers, Clark Bensen, a
consultant and publisher from the Polidata Co., and Steven
Camarota, Director of Research for the Center for Immigration
Studies. Joining these two will be Lawrence Gonzalez
representing the National Association of Latino elected and
appointed officials.
In our third panel we will hear from several legal and
academic scholars including the former director of the Census
Bureau, Dr. Ken Prewitt. Joining him will be James Gimpel,
professor of government and politics at the University of
Maryland; Johnny Killian, senior specialist in constitutional
law in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research
Service; and Andrew Spiropoulos, professor of law at the
Oklahoma City University School of Law. Finally, we will hear
from Nina Perales, Southwestern regional counsel of the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
With that, my colleagues on the subcommittee and I welcome
you Mrs. Miller and we look forward to your testimony. We look
forward to the testimony of all our distinguished witnesses
today and thank them for their preparation and time in
participating today.
With that, I would like to recognize our ranking member
Mrs. Maloney.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael R. Turner follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.002
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Chairman Turner, and I really very
much appreciate your fairness in handling this hearing, and I
always enjoy working with you. I particularly want to thank you
for the hearing you held recently in New York City on the
community development block grants and look forward to the
passage of that report before Congress.
But today, unfortunately, we have before us a truly
reckless constitutional proposal which on one hand runs counter
to our American ideals and on the other hand makes little
practical sense. Were it to become part of the Constitution, it
would be the second amendment in our history which did not
expand individual liberties. The other was prohibition. The
amendment shrinks liberty and deliberately blinds the national
government to the needs of millions upon millions of Americans.
This amendment reverses the explicit intent of the Framers
that representation in the House should be based on population
and that a periodic count of residents was the only legitimate
means to assure equitable representation based on population in
a changing nation.
The Census Act of 1790, introduced by James Madison and
signed into law by George Washington, called for an enumeration
of the, ``inhabitants of the United States.'' This was
deliberate. We were then and have always been a nation of
immigrants. Indeed, seven signers of the Declaration of
Independence and eight signers of our Constitution were foreign
born. Noncitizens fought for liberty in the Revolutionary War
for America and in every war since. Today, 35,000 noncitizens
serve on active duty and 8,000 more enlist every year.
Most noncitizens are here legally. They are legal,
permanent residents and visa holders who pay local, State and
Federal taxes. The Framers decided that only citizens would
have the right to choose their Representatives through the
right to vote. They just as firmly intended that, ``all
inhabitants,'' of the country be counted for purposes of
apportioning the seats of Congress. They mandated a census of
the entire population to prevent the, ``manipulation of
political power and taxation.''
The census is itself one of the many vital checks and
balances embedded in our constitutional form of government
which are at the root of why it has endured so long. This
amendment before us today, however, turns the census into a
political gadget.
As we will hear today in testimony, the census has become a
weapon in today's political debate on immigration. Proponents
of this amendment will point to recent growth in the percentage
of foreign-born residents to make a case that this has somehow,
``diluted voting representation of nonborder States.'' The
truth is that compared to the post-Civil War counts, for
instance, this percentage is historically low.
As we will hear today, this amendment is a management
nightmare. It requires the Census Bureau first to count
everyone, then for the first time in our Nation's history, ask
everyone for proof that they are a citizen, only for the
purpose of going back and removing people from the count. That
will be a huge cost in time and taxpayer money.
Imagine when proponents of this amendment demand that
residents show proof of citizenship. The end result will be a
national ID card. And let's not sugar coat the effects of this
amendment; it will discriminate, it will disproportionately
exclude Hispanics, who make up the lion's share of our Nation's
most recent immigration. To politically manipulate the count
and generate undercounts in border States to benefit interior
States is discrimination.
Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle profess
to prefer a limited Federal Government, so why would they
propose a big government, expensive, time-consuming, invasive
and last, but certainly not least, discriminatory amendment to
our Constitution? It is simple. This amendment is about
shifting power. By artificially altering the population in
certain areas, the consequence, of course, is an inaccurate
census count.
A government that spends its resources in the wrong places,
where it would skew representation, will result in a loss of
faith in leadership.
This is about sacrificing 210 years of constitutional
practice and history merely to increase short-term power at the
expense of millions of Americans and those that will soon be
Americans in our country.
I am opposed to this amendment. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.005
Mr. Turner. Mrs. Maloney, I want to thank you for your
participation today. You have made valuable contributions to
this committee, and I appreciate your viewpoint.
Today, this hearing, as we look forward, is informational,
and I do believe that many are not aware of how apportionment
is accomplished; and your viewpoint is going to be valuable as
we educate people of the processes and perhaps the impacts of
this constitutional amendment.
Mrs. Maloney. I appreciate it is educational and not--thank
you.
Mr. Turner. I next would like to recognize our vice chair,
Charlie Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding
this very important hearing to examine the possible impact of
Congresswoman Miller's proposed joint resolution to amend the
Constitution to mandate that only U.S. citizens be counted in
census data for apportionment purposes. It is crucial that we
review and evaluate this proposed legislation in that it would
have a widespread impact on the Census Bureau, Electoral
College, number of seats in the House, and basic weight of an
individual's vote.
While I deeply respect the Congresswoman's initiative in
attempting to illuminate and correct the problem of dilution of
U.S. citizens' votes, I think it is also crucial that we take a
realistic look at the possible difficulties and costs that may
arise as a result of implementing H.J. Res. 53. I look forward
to the testimony of my esteemed colleague, Representative
Miller, as well as the other witnesses today.
Thanks, Chairman Turner, for holding this hearing.
Mr. Turner. Thank you. Now it is my honor to recognize for
her testimony the Honorable Congresswoman Candice Miller.
STATEMENT OF HON. CANDICE S. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. Thank so much, Mr. Chairman and
Representative Maloney, Vice Chair Representative Dent as well.
I appreciate the fact that you all come with an open mind to
this issue, and I certainly appreciate your having a hearing on
a piece of legislation that I think is very important to
protect the integrity of our democratic system, quite frankly.
Mr. Chairman, over the last several decades our Nation has
had a rather dramatic shift in the population, and as a result
of that, a shift in the congressional representation as well,
principally from the Northeast and the Midwest, to the southern
and western regions of our Nation. There are, of course, a
number of reasons for population shifts.
Many people just prefer warmer climates and they might
retire into some of those areas permanently. Some people are
looking for job opportunities, and they may move to cities to
pursue them. There are certainly many legitimate reasons for
people to move to the South and West, and I strongly believe in
the concept of representational democracy, so it is entirely
appropriate for congressional seats to move along with the
population shifts so that Americans are properly represented in
the halls of Congress.
But as I examined this issue, I came across what I thought
was a rather surprising thing, quite startling actually. The
fact is that illegal immigration or people who are in our
country illegally or are not legal citizens of our Nation are
being counted and apportioned congressional representation just
the same as every legal American citizen.
Let us examine how this can possibly be happening. Our
Constitution, of course, requires the government to undertake a
census every 10 years. One of the many purposes of the census
is to distribute seats in the Congress amongst the various
States. Those with greater population receive more seats than
those with less. Simple concept. This reapportionment of seats
is meant to balance as close as is practical the concept of one
man, one vote.
The 14th amendment of our Constitution states that in the
census that all persons must be counted. All persons, of
course, include every man, every woman, rich, poor, Black,
White, every person. However, many people would be surprised to
know that it also means citizens and noncitizens, including
illegal immigrants.
In fulfilling its constitutional obligation, the U.S.
Census Bureau counts every person whether they are in this
country legally or not. Those same numbers, which include both
legal and illegal immigrants, are then used to determine
congressional representation. So even if you broke the laws of
our country to come here, we give you as much representation to
impact our laws as any legal American.
So for all practical purposes, when we are voting in
Congress about issues like national security or border security
or illegal immigration, we allow illegal immigrants to
influence the outcome of those votes. We disenfranchise our own
American citizens by allowing illegal immigrants to be counted
for the purposes of congressional representation in the same
identical way that we count legal citizens.
Just allow me to illustrate my point by comparing three
different congressional districts, and let me start with the
10th District of Michigan, which I am very proud to represent.
According to the 2000 census, in the 10th District of Michigan,
the census says 97 percent of the residents that live in my
district are American citizens; 3 percent are not.
If you look at the entire State of Montana, that has only
one congressional district, the census is saying there that 99
percent of the people in Montana are citizens, less than 1
percent are not.
Let us now consider the congressional district, the 31st
District of California. According to the census, 60 percent of
the residents there are citizens, 40 percent of the residents
in this district are not American citizens, and yet all three,
the 10th District of Michigan, the entire State of Montana, and
the 31st District of California have the same vote in the U.S.
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, I was a secretary of State in
Michigan before I came to Congress. My principal responsibility
there was as an election official, so I do perhaps look at
election results a little more closely than some. And it was
while I was looking at some of the election numbers that this
became apparent to me.
There were nearly three times as many voters in my district
during the last election cycle as there were in California's
31st. So a House candidate in California's 31st District only
needs 56,000 votes to win a seat in Congress, and yet in my
district a winning candidate would need a minimum of 166,000
votes in order to become a Member of Congress, nearly 50
percent more than the entire vote in California's 31st.
I think that fundamental fairness suggests that each
congressional district should have roughly the same number of
citizens since only citizens are able to vote. A district that
has tens or hundred of thousands of illegal immigrants dilutes
the voice of American citizens in other areas of the Nation,
and in my opinion, that is simply not fair.
Another effect of these congressional seats shifting to
States with larger noncitizen populations is that recipient
States have a larger voice in Congress and, in fact, throughout
the entire Federal Government. By having an inflated
population, a greater number of Representatives in the House,
it opens doors for increased Federal funding in those States.
It might actually give some of these States an incentive to
encourage illegal immigration.
If only citizens had been counted for the purposes of
reapportionment, CRS estimates show that it would have had an
impact on how nine congressional seats were allocated during
the last congressional reallocation. By the Census Bureau's
estimate, California is home to an estimated 5.4 million
noncitizens. The State of California would have been allocated
six fewer seats in the House of Representatives. Three other
States would have had one less seat: Florida, New York and
Texas.
Nine States would have picked up those seats. Those States
are Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Utah. In fact, if you
think about the six additional congressional seats that have
been given to California just because of its illegal immigrant
or its noncitizen, however you want to categorize it,
population, it also gives those noncitizens an equal or greater
voice in the Electoral College and, thus, the Presidential race
than States that have six or less Members of Congress.
Those States that have less to say than illegal immigrants
are Alaska, Delaware, Arkansas, the District of Columbia,
Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming. Fully
20 States and the District of Columbia have less to say, who is
elected the President of the United States, than do the illegal
immigrants that live in the State of California, most of whom,
many of them, broke laws to get into our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number of people who you will
hear from shortly in the next panel who will tell this
committee not to concern itself with this, that we are a
compassionate nation and we need to protect everybody and need
to allow this to continue. I do not believe that we should. And
for those reasons I have introduced House Joint Resolution 53.
This is a constitutional amendment that specifies that the
congressional representation shall be apportioned based on the
number of citizens, not persons, a really simple change to the
14th amendment.
The right to vote is certainly one of our most cherished
freedoms. We should not allow that right to be diluted for any
reason. Unfortunately, our porous border and lax enforcement of
immigration laws are doing just that. Citizens in States with
fewer immigrants, legal and illegal, are disadvantaged. This is
about fundamental fairness and, again, the American ideal: One
man, or maybe one woman, one vote.
I don't want anyone to take away the impression that I am
anti-immigration. I am a first-generation Scot, and in my
district and in my entire State we have immigrants that came
from across the globe to seek a better life for themselves. And
I will tell you that my constituents who have followed the laws
to become American citizens are the first people that think
that this is outrageous and want to see it changed. They
cherish their citizenship so deeply and the blessing it bestows
on them that they more than any others do not want to have
their voice diluted.
I appreciate your interest in this issue, Mr. Chairman and
members of the subcommittee, and I look forward to your
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Candice S. Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.016
Mr. Turner. Congresswoman Miller, I appreciate the fact
that you have highlighted this issue. I think we are all aware
that when the constitutional convention came together there was
much heated discussion that resulted in the structure that we
have today of the House and the Senate and the allocation of
Representatives by State based upon the discussion of how do we
balance the issue of influence of large States versus small
States. There was a grave concern that those in small States
would have less of a voice or representation in Congress and
have perhaps their interests overridden.
With your illustration of the fact that noncitizens in
California representing six additional electors both in the
Electoral College that elects our President, and
Representatives, your illustration that 20 States have either
less or equal representation on the national level to those
seats gives a great illustration that this is an issue that
goes to the heart of the discussion of the constitutional
convention of the balance of States and their power.
I certainly think that your comments do not sound anti-
immigrant; they sound citizen versus noncitizen as an issue of
allocating the vote. It certainly doesn't address the issue of
whether or not anyone is welcome, but as you address the issue
of balancing of power between the States--something that was
very important in structuring our government--it becomes part
of that discussion.
Prior to serving in Congress you served as secretary of
State and had responsibility for administration of the
electoral system in Michigan. One of the criticisms that we
hear of this proposal--obviously, one is the issue of cost,
which I don't find too compelling because, obviously, if we are
trying to bolster the rights of citizens, cost is certainly not
something that would be a compelling argument.
But the nightmare of the administration of the process, I
think, is one that does need to be addressed: How would we
accomplish the determination of someone's status as citizen or
noncitizen? In the testimony that you have and the testimony
that we have from most of the witnesses, they make references
to the number of citizens or noncitizens that are currently
counted in the system. Someone obviously has taken an effort
from the data that we have had to ascertain where citizens or
noncitizens are located.
Could you speak for a moment to what you have learned and
your thoughts on the processes of how we might be able to then
be successful in doing a census which is under the jurisdiction
of this committee and determine citizenship and noncitizenship?
Mrs. Miller. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I obviously don't work for
the Census Bureau, so I couldn't tell you what the entire
impact would be, but I do not believe that this resolution that
I am putting forward should really be viewed numerically in the
terms of what the costs actually are. As you say, it is about
fairness and protecting our citizens' rights.
However, right now, the Census Bureau is already estimating
without verifying how many citizens and how many noncitizens.
In fact, CRS prepared a report for me, detailing for every
congressional district in the entire Nation the numbers based
on the last census of total population, native born,
naturalized citizens, their total, the percentage of resident
population, noncitizen population, and then the total vote cast
in the 2002 general election.
The Census Bureau is already doing much of this work
without verification. If they just started with the information
that they already have, I don't know why that would be a
problem for them.
I do think though, it is very important that we do count
every person. I am not suggesting that we stop counting
everybody here. It is important for us to try to get a handle
on what our population is, citizens, noncitizens, etc. I am
only speaking to the process of congressional representation,
so I am not suggesting that the Census Bureau change their
processes not to count illegal immigrants or noncitizens. Those
categories must be counted and have to be taken into
consideration for a number of other reasons.
I am also not suggesting that my proposal go to States or
local municipalities. This is only about Federal congressional
representation. The States would be allowed to continue as they
want.
I would like to mention the REAL ID Act that the Congress
has recently passed. I was very involved in that particular
piece of legislation. Not only as former secretary of state in
Michigan did I have election responsibilities, I also had
responsibilities with issuing drivers' licenses. We were 1 of
10 States that continued to issue driver's license and State
identification cards to known illegal immigrants; even though
we knew they were in the country illegally, we had to keep
giving them a driver's license, which I believe is very
counterintuitive with the kinds of challenges that are facing
our Nation today.
But the REAL ID Act is going to address that. Now legal
presence will be required and every State, even before the REAL
ID card, the DMVs and secretaries of state are required to ask
for your Social Security number before they issue you a
driver's license or State identification card.
So I do think that some of this verification technology is
going to be in place and I would speculate that it will be an
assist to the Census Bureau as they look into what the costs
actually would be.
Mr. Turner. Congresswoman Miller, you have proposed this
change by constitutional amendment versus statute.
Is it that you believe that a statute would not be
sufficient in order to be able to effect this change?
Mrs. Miller. You know, I would prefer to do it by statute
because obviously a constitutional amendment is quite a
laborious process; and again, I appreciate the hearing on the
issue. Of course, it requires two-thirds of each body and then
three-fifths or three-quarters of the States for a
constitutional amendment, and we should not change the
Constitution by whim; so I recognize the seriousness of what I
am proposing here. However, as we researched this issue, we
came across a Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, this
was in the Spring of 1999, entitled, ``Losing Control of
America's Future: The Census, Birthright, Citizenship and
Illegal Aliens.'' They went through this entire process, and at
the very end it said that the thesis of this article is that
needed changes can be accomplished by statute.
They do believe that it could be accomplished by statute.
If, however, either change cannot be made in this way without
significant delay because the President, Congress or even the
Supreme Court believes the Constitution precludes it, then a
constitutional amendment should be pursued until ratification
is achieved.
Essentially, I came to the same conclusion because I do
believe if we tried to do this by statute, even if we were
successful in passing it, we would be facing endless
litigation, and so I thought a constitutional amendment would
be the most prudent course.
Mr. Turner. Thank you so much.
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you very much for your testimony today,
Congresswoman.
As a Member of Congress, can you describe how your proposal
benefits your State of Michigan?
Mrs. Miller. Yes. As I mentioned in my testimony, we
actually would probably not have lost one of our seats.
Previous to the last census, Michigan had 16 congressional
seats. Currently we have 15, and we are looking in the next
census at the distinct possibility of losing an additional
seat. This is not because we have not grown in population. Many
States just like your own of New York, we have actually had an
increase in our population but not at the same rapid expansion
that is happening in the South--Florida, Arizona, New Mexico,
Texas, California, what have you--particularly when you factor
in the illegal immigration.
Mrs. Maloney. I have no further questions.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Like you, Congresswoman Miller, I come from a State that
has not grown at a very great rate. In fact, according to the
data, in 1960 my State had 27 Members of Congress; today we
have 19. Back in the 1930's I know we were over 30 Members of
Congress. So really since the 1930's our representation has
been nearly cut in half.
I would be curious to know how many seats my State has lost
due to noncitizens being counted over these several decades,
and maybe you know what the answer is to Michigan.
According to the data provided to me, my State would pick
up a seat. I would be curious to see how many seats we might
not have lost had noncitizens not been counted. I don't know if
you have any thoughts on that.
Mrs. Miller. I have some thoughts. I think it is very
unfair what has happened to all of us.
I am sorry, I don't have the numbers for your particular
State, but you can see a common element here. And I understand,
as I said at the outset, that we all absolutely believe in
representing the people, the American citizens. That is why we
require citizenship to vote.
I mean, if you took this to its logical conclusion, why
even require citizenship in order to vote? Again, as a former
chief elections officer, if we want to protect the rights of
illegal immigrants, why do we even require people to have
citizenship to vote? They are already really voting on the
floor of the House.
But I do think that we understand why people and population
shifts are occurring. That being said, I have no problem with
seats in the House being apportioned based on population, but I
certainly do have a distinct distaste for the fact that
American citizens', legal citizens of America, vote is being
diluted because as the population is shifting and illegal
immigration is increasing in some of these border States.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
Mr. Turner. We thank Congresswoman Miller. We thank you for
your testimony as panel one, and if you would, please now join
us as we turn to Panel Two. We have two panels that would
continue our discussion of the counting of U.S. citizens and
how it impacts our elected Representatives and what would be
the effect if we only, in that process, counted U.S. citizens.
On panel two we have Mr. Clark Bensen, consultant and
publisher, Polidata Co.; Mr. Steven Camarota, director of
research, Center for Immigration Studies; Mr. Lawrence
Gonzalez, Washington director of National Association of Latino
Elected and Appointed Officials.
If you would come forward.
Gentlemen, we will begin by swearing in the witnesses of
our second panel. We will swear in the witnesses for the second
and the third panels. Witnesses will notice that there is a
timer light at the witness table. The green light indicates
that you should begin your prepared remarks and the red light
indicates that your time has expired. The yellow light
indicates when you will have 1 minute left to conclude your
remarks. Each of you will be asked to summarize your previously
submitted written testimony into a 5-minute presentation.
It is the policy of this committee that the witnesses be
sworn in before they testify. You would please rise and raise
your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Turner. Please let the record show that all witnesses
have responded in the affirmative.
I want to thank each of you for the time that you have
taken to prepare for your testimony here today. We look forward
to your comments and we will begin with Mr. Bensen.
STATEMENTS OF CLARK BENSEN, CONSULTANT AND PUBLISHER, POLIDATA
CO.; STEVEN CAMAROTA, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, CENTER FOR
IMMIGRATION STUDIES; AND LAWRENCE GONZALEZ, WASHINGTON
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ELECTED AND APPOINTED
OFFICIALS
STATEMENT OF CLARK BENSEN
Mr. Bensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to address the possible impacts, mostly the
political impacts, of a noncitizen apportionment.
Mr. Turner. Can I ask you to move closer to your mic. That
way we can hear you better.
Mr. Bensen. In addition to the written remarks, there are
maps and tablets on my Web site, Polidata.organization,
Polidata.org, and there were just too many different scenarios
to provide all sorts of handouts here.
Let me first start off by summarizing some of what
Congresswoman Miller addressed, which is, the 2000 census
actually was the culmination of a 6-decades-long shift of the
political power in the country from the Northeast and the
Midwest to the South and the West. This is clearly a trend that
is continuing, and in fact, projections on the 2010
apportionment would indicate that an additional 11 seats would
shift from the Northeast to the South and the West.
At the same time, of course, the noncitizens, as we
measured them in the census, have risen dramatically from, in
1980, about 3 percent to, in 2000, over 6 percent. The
distribution, however, of the noncitizens is not very randomly
distributed as it were, and in fact with the handout over here
there are two maps, one of which is a county-based map, which
is this one, which does in fact indicate that a lot of the
distribution of the noncitizens is in the border areas. And it
is because of this uneven distribution of the noncitizens,
again, as we determine them from the census that in fact this
is a Robin Hood kind of proposal in the sense that we take from
the few and give to the many.
And in fact the first aspect I looked at here was the
actual apportionments that have been made over the last few
decades and projected out to 2010. And in 1980, 1990 and 2000
it was the same general trend, which is, very few States--
basically, four or five States----would have lost seats had the
apportionment been based upon noncitizens. And in 2010 it would
basically be the same impact.
Before my time runs out, I want to address a couple of
issues. A lot of the issues we will hear several times today,
but one of the impacts, of course, is just briefly the
Electoral College. Yes, noncitizens do vote in California
because of this, but the overall impact would be basically not
as big a shift because some of the other States, of course, are
Republicans or Democrats, and so in a sense would have been
four extra votes for Bush in 2000 and 2004.
But the other aspect goes to the redistricting elements of
it, and Congresswoman Miller addressed this to some degree. In
actuality, her example is correct even though in reality you
should look at one State at a time. And in California it is a
similar situation, in which case I look at the Presidential
results by congressional district.
And this is a project that Polidata has been working on
every 4 years for 2 decades, and we look at the total votes in
the Presidential election and compare that; and in California
it is the same kind of scenario, which is, you have districts
where the average vote in the Presidential election is three
times what the vote is in the districts that have the smallest
number of votes.
Let me summarize by saying that also the overall result for
the House is that if you add up all the districts based upon
the Presidential votes, 50 percent of the Members are elected
by 42 percent of the voters in the country.
The other element I want to address is again the accuracy
of the data and the impact upon the Bureau. And as we know, it
would be a short-form item now; and I am concerned about not
only the accuracy of the responses, but the fact we may have
nonresponse followup, which is a very costly element of the
entire process.
And more importantly, since I represent people who actually
do the redistricting, we need good data, and I see this as a
potential problem from not only the Bureau standpoint of their
reputation, but also the inevitable litigation over the whole
process.
And the more important question from a redistricting
standpoint is, if we in fact exclude citizens for
apportionment, what happens at the State and local level? There
is some rationale that in fact whatever is used for
apportionment at the local level must basically follow the
census, but that is because that has always been determined to
be that it is basically based on population.
I believe some of the other panelists, the scholars panel,
I guess, will address this to some degree as well. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bensen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.026
Mr. Turner. Mr. Camarota.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN CAMAROTA
Mr. Camarota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I would like to thank you for having me testify on
immigration and reapportionment or apportionment.
The United States, of course, is currently experiencing the
largest sustained wave of immigration with 1\1/2\ million legal
and illegal immigrants settling here. The total foreign-born
was 31 million in the 2000 census, including both citizens and
noncitizens. Data from 2005 show that it has probably reached
about 36 million.
Now, there is an unfortunate tendency to see this
immigration and see immigrants one-dimensionally, as only
workers or as only users of public services and welfare. But
immigrants are much more than this; they are human beings. As a
result, they have wide-ranging economic, cultural, demographic,
national security and political effects on our country.
If you take nothing else away from my testimony, it should
be that allowing in large numbers of people, even as guest
workers or just tolerating widespread illegal immigration, has
broad-ranging effects on our society that go well beyond the
usual discussion about jobs and welfare and so forth. And one
of those impacts is on the reapportionment of House seats.
Let me give you some of the overall numbers quickly. The
2000 census showed roughly 19 million noncitizens. Most
estimates suggest that 7 or 8 million of these noncitizens were
illegal aliens and roughly 1 million were on long-term
temporary visas. All of these noncitizens have consequences for
apportionment because, as we have already discussed, seats are
apportioned to each State in the House based on its total
population, and counting the noncitizens and, of course,
noncitizens are not evenly distributed throughout the United
States.
Let me give you one statistic. In the 2000 census, half of
all noncitizens lived in just three States. Now, in a report
published by the Center for Immigration Studies, we calculated
the impact, as others have talked about here as well; the
report is available over on the table. My weather-beaten table
over here that didn't survive the trip to Capitol Hill shows
the States that lost. We will run through them briefly.
The inclusion of noncitizens in the census caused Indiana,
Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin each lost a seat
that they had prior to 2000, while Montana, Kentucky and Utah
each failed to gain a seat they otherwise would have had. We
also found that of these nine seats, four were redistributed by
the illegal aliens. Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, and Montana
each had one fewer seat because of the inclusion of illegal
aliens in the census. The big winner, of course, is California.
Now, because of family relationships and existing cultural
ties, immigrants will tend to remain concentrated for some
time. They will slowly spread out in the country. Now, that
fact along with the fact that immigration levels remain so high
means that the noncitizen population is going to also remain
high for some time, assuming we don't change U.S. immigration
policy or begin to enforce our immigration laws.
Now, a 2002 report, for example, found that if all
noncitizens who are eligible to naturalize, that is, to become
citizens, were naturalized tomorrow, there would still be 15
million noncitizens in the United States. Now, one of the key
controversies associated with apportionment caused by
noncitizens, or reapportionment caused by the presence of
noncitizens, is this fact: It clearly takes away representation
from States composed largely of citizens.
Of the nine States that lost seats because of the presence
of noncitizens in other States, only 1 in 50 residents was a
noncitizen in 2000; in contrast, 1 in 7 residents is a
noncitizen in California, the big winner. As a result, as we
have already talked about, it often takes relatively few votes
to win some of these noncitizen heavy districts. In fact, it
only took about 68,000 votes to win the average California
district in 2002, where it took over 100,000 votes to win the
average district in the States that lost seats.
Now, I will leave the constitutional issues to others. Let
me touch on some of the practical issues with excluding
noncitizens. To exclude them would require the census to move
the citizenship question from the long form, which only about
15 percent of the population receive, or one-sixth of the
population, to the short form which everyone gets. Now, it
takes a long time to implement that kind of change, so we need
to think about that. And there is also the question of
accuracy.
Let me conclude by saying, it should be obvious a large
noncitizen population is an unavoidable product of large-scale
legal immigration and widespread toleration of illegal
immigration. If you want to avoid this situation, it seems the
obvious thing to do is change immigration policy. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Camarota follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.036
Mr. Turner. Mr. Gonzalez.
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE GONZALEZ
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for your invitation to
testify regarding House Joint Resolution 53.
Our fund is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that
empowers Latinos to participate fully in the American political
process from citizenship to public service. It includes more
than 6,000 Latino elected and appointed officials nationwide.
Because of our longstanding work on promoting a full
enumeration of the census, we were recently appointed by the
U.S. Secretary of Commerce to serve as a member of the 2010
Census Advisory Committee. Member organizations of the 2010 CAC
play a critical role in advising the Census Bureau on how it
can effectively and effectively accomplish the goals and
objectives. It is from our extensive experience that I discuss
with you today what we believe would be the detrimental impacts
of H.J. Res. 53 on the efforts to fully integrate the second
largest population group into our political system.
The passage of this resolution would serve to isolate
segments of society and send a message that only U.S. citizens
have a right to be heard by our government and elected
officials. Omitting noncitizens from the traditional census
count contradicts the body of the U.S. Constitution, as well as
the 14th amendment which specifically requires that States not
discriminate against persons in their jurisdictions.
Congress does not just represent citizens. Our Federal
elected officials represent all persons, particularly children,
who have not yet reached the age to vote, and women, who did
not have the right to vote until passage of the 19th amendment
and countless other groups of residents of the United States.
Congress also represents the thousands of our American
soldiers offering their lives to protect our Nation who are not
yet citizens but are lawful, permanent residents. Surely these
men and women in uniform are entitled to be represented by the
country for which they are willing to sacrifice their lives.
This is dangerous ground when we decide to classify slaves
as not being whole persons, but three-fifths of a person. This
amendment would determine that members of our society who are
not yet citizens are also not persons in the eyes of the law.
This is fundamentally contrary to our values as Americans.
Congress has considered such changes to the Constitution
before and has rejected them each time, deciding instead to
embrace the principles established by the Framers of the
Constitution that the U.S. House of Representatives represents
all persons residing in this country, not just a few with
rights.
In listening to the discussions and the presentations of
research surrounding the introduction of H.J. Res. 53 much of
the debate is focused on the number of undocumented immigrants
and their impact on political representation. It focuses on
winners and losers in political terms.
For example, an analysis by the Congressional Research
Service from May 2005 indicates that if only citizens were
counted in the 2000 census, California, Texas, New York and
Florida would have lost congressional representation rather
than gained. Because of the large undocumented population, so
the debate goes, and all persons rather than citizens were
counted, several other States lost representation. A discussion
about counting only citizens is particularly disheartening when
viewed in the context of potential Latino political progress.
Let me offer the members of this subcommittee another
perspective, a perspective that seems to get lost in the
emotional debate about illegal immigration and one that our
organization cares very deeply about. Last year our
organization completed an analysis of the population estimates
of legal permanent residents eligible for citizenship, that was
produced by the Urban Institute demographer Dr. Jeffrey Passel.
These estimates reveal that one out of two of the Nation's
legal permanent residents eligible for U.S. citizenship were
Latino, 4.2 million. Estimates were produced for Latino legal
permanent residents and all legal permanent residents, which
totaled 7.7 million eligible to become citizens.
Since much of Dr. Passel's estimates are based on Census
2000 data, we believe the overall number of LPRs eligible for
citizenship may now be approaching 10 million, with nearly half
of those being Latino. According to our analysis, most of the
eligible Latino legal permanent residents are in States that
are traditional Latino population centers. About 77 percent of
the Nation's total live in California, Texas, New York,
Florida, Illinois, New Jersey or Arizona. This is important to
note in light of the CRS analysis.
While we do not dispute the fact that there are large
undocumented populations in these States, our analysis shows
that there are also many immigrants poised to become citizens.
If the goal of H.J. Res. 53 is to shift political power away
from States that have large concentrations of undocumented
immigrants, the reality is these States also have hundreds of
thousands of immigrants who are law-abiding citizens who have
played by the rules and are preparing to become full
participants in this Nation.
In conclusion, we agree with Representative Miller's public
statement that H.J. Res. 53 and this discussion today is about
the concept of one person, one vote. If you are a person in
this country, you should be counted. While the Latino community
continues on its path to full political engagement and
representation, we have not yet reached that goal, and we will
not reach it without the continued counting of all persons that
reside within the United States.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gonzales follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.041
Mr. Turner. We will begin our questioning of this panel
with Congresswoman Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I will be
brief. Again, I can't tell you how much I appreciate your
holding a hearing on this, because I do think it is such an
important issue. I would first start with Mr. Bensen of the
Polidata Co. You have a political perspective, I think, on what
all this means.
And I do appreciate that, because it will have certainly an
impact, but I do not think this can be viewed in a partisan
way. From a political standpoint, I do think that the shift
should be to shift political power from noncitizens to
citizens.
But you also mentioned what would happen if we were to do
this and how it would impact the States, and as you mentioned,
historically, it has been the practice of the States to
apportion based on sort of taking the ratcheting off of what is
happening at the Federal level.
Do you have any comments whether you think it would be
inappropriate for the States to apportion their State senate
seats and State house seats based on citizenship as well?
Mr. Bensen. Well, there is some precedent for using
something other than population as a basis for apportionment in
legislatures. For instance, Hawaii at one time used registered
voters. The State of Vermont used registered voters at one
time, as well; and several States--at least Kansas, I know; I
believe another State now--also excludes military and students
from their apportionment base. But again the degree to which
this has been addressed by the courts, and the Supreme Court in
particular, has largely rested upon the assumption that
population is the touchstone. Regardless, whatever basis the
State uses should track the Federal census.
But again the trick there is whether that is because it's
the Federal census and it has done the best or because its
population base is kind of a mixed bag, but it's more of the
latter.
The question really is whether or not that can be done
because the accuracy of the data requires at the Federal level
that block level data reflect noncitizen status. Redistricting
people are unique in the census user community, shall we say,
in the sense that they are really the only users of the block
level data. When we look at the military--and in fact in 1990
and 2000 the military were added on to the States' resident
population for apportionment of the U.S. House. They were then
excluded from the actual districting process because there is
no geographic precision as to where these people live.
That is not going to be the case with the noncitizen
aspect. We would need to know exactly each block, which again
raises a privacy issue to some degree as well because a census
block could be two, three or four people, not just a city block
with 100 houses or something. So there is some question as to
whether that could be done.
I am not saying it can't be, but the question really more
so in that regard is whether or not the States are going to
have an apportionment base that gives them that operation.
Mrs. Miller. I appreciate that. I think the operative
phrase here is that they do have the option. I am a big
supporter of State's rights, and I think it is important that
every citizen is counted. As you said, some of them are looking
at registered voters. Well, what about people 18 or younger or
convicted felons; they are still citizens of this Nation. I
think they need to be counted certainly for these purposes.
I would also make a comment that I think if you are a
noncitizen serving in the armed services, which does happen
now--and we obviously salute everybody that wears a uniform for
America--in those cases, I think it would be very appropriate
for us as a Nation to expedite their citizenship process, and
this is something that we need to pursue as well.
Mr. Gonzalez, I was trying to take notes as you were
talking there. You did testify that the passage of the
resolution would send a message that only U.S. citizens would
have a right to be heard by our government and elected
officials. Do you think it is the purpose of representative
democracy to represent citizens or be responsive to every
person that is in the country, even though those that are here
illegally, do you think it would be appropriate then for us to
allow the right to vote to people who are here illegally?
Mr. Gonzalez. No, absolutely not. I do think that they
should have a level of representation according to the
Constitution that all persons should be represented, but in
terms of undocumented aliens voting, absolutely not.
Mrs. Miller. I appreciate that. And so, in my mind, I guess
my thought process would be, if they already really have the
right to vote based on our current system, based on what is
happening with congressional representation, as I have
mentioned and gone over these statistics, you have the illegal
immigrants or noncitizen population in California that has more
impact on the Presidential election than it does in 20 States
and the District of Columbia.
Again, when we are voting on issues like border security,
what have you, and illegal immigrants already have essentially
the right to vote--because they are impacting legislation, that
is happening. You have no problem with that, though?
Mr. Gonzalez. I wouldn't say I have a problem with it. I
just think there are other decisions being made by Members of
Congress and elected officials that do impact the way the
broader society views immigrants in general, and I don't know
that necessarily our society differentiates.
I think it is very similar to this overall immigration
reform debate, where it is fine to talk about border security
and all of that, but often from the Hispanic perspective what
people hear is anti-Hispanic. So there's not this real
differentiation. They look, see Hispanic, you must be illegal,
you might be. We don't know, all we know is, we are against
this. And that is the message being sent and that is our
concern more than anything.
Mrs. Miller. I appreciate that. We certainly do not want to
send that message. I know I do not.
As I mentioned to you, in southeast Michigan, principally
because of the auto jobs, almost every ethnic group around the
planet has come and has been a wonderful part of the fabric of
our society there. And that is so with Hispanics and almost
every ethnic group that you can think of. I think we have the
highest Arabic population in the Nation, and it makes for a
wonderful culture there and we do not want to send a message of
anti-immigration.
I think we all need to make certain that we continue to
welcome immigrants to this Nation. It really is what has been
the backbone of our Nation, makes us strong. I do not believe
that this resolution would change that in any way.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Turner. Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of
the panelists for your testimony.
Mr. Bensen, on page 6, point one of your testimony, you
testified that it would, in fact, be very difficult to count
only citizens in the decennial census and would likely result
in a failed census. And I quote from your testimony: I believe
it is not possible that the data collected will meet the high
threshold of accuracy that is required for the apportionment
process.
Could you elaborate for us in more detail of why you
believe that the data collected for a citizen-only census would
not be accurate enough for apportionment purposes?
Mr. Bensen. Sure. First off, most of what we know about
noncitizen aspects--and it is certainly, most of everything I
talked about noncitizen aspects is from the census and from the
not short form but the long form--it is sample data. And if
there is anything that those of us working in redistricting
have learned over the last decade, we can't use sample data for
the purposes of apportionment.
So, right away, there is a problem. We can't rely upon the
current information we have. And all of these estimates are
based upon that sample data.
The other aspect is the inherent bias in a respondent of
anyone to a survey, in essence a census, as to the kind of
social and political mores. It seems better to say you are a
citizen, so many people will say they are a citizen when they
are not. Or, on the other hand, they may feel a chilling effect
in it and not answer at all. If they--in the old days, 1990 or
2000, had they not answered that question, in all likelihood,
it would have been filled in by imputation because it was a
long-form question. It was not a critical data element. By
transmogrifying the status of it from an informational piece of
information into the legal aspect of whether or not it is going
to have an impact on apportionment, it changes the whole
character of it.
And I think it has an inherent bias. It has a tendency to
be nonresponsive, and therefore, the Bureau would have to spend
more money to go and find out whether in fact these people were
citizens. And then, again, it is not the Bureau's job to
determine whether or not they are citizens. Everything the
census form collects and everything that we know from the
census is self-response data. There is no showing your passport
to anyone. It is what you fill out. The same thing with all the
race and ethnic data. It is what you put down as to whether you
are from the Ukraine or whatever. It is not a thing that the
Bureau can verify, and I don't think they have the resources or
should be asked to verify.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you for your statement.
We have talked a great deal today about apportionment. But
the census really is a picture of America. And it is used for
many, many purposes; research, allocation of resources. And I
believe that is why our founding fathers had it based on
people, the amount of people. There are areas where there are
people on the road to becoming citizens and so forth. Counting
them accurately is very important, not only for business--
business relies very heavily on census data for projections--
and certainly city governments and State governments for
purposes of services, needs, infrastructure, schools,
hospitals. All of this is very important data that I would just
like to open it up to any of you to answer.
What would be the impact if you started excluding large
swaths of population and saying, they're not going to be
counted? Then you are not going to have the data that gives us
an accurate picture of who we are as a Nation, where our needs
are, where the trends are, where we are going, certainly who is
in the country, what their ages are. So I would like to open it
up for anyone to comment on that.
Mr. Bensen. I will be brief about it and move on here.
First off, we have to remember that the constitutional purpose
of the census is for apportionment. And for most of the history
of the census, there really were no other questions asked, all
the other fun socioeconomic data that we get we didn't have
before.
But the other thing really is it goes back to the question
I was talking about with with Congresswoman Miller which is,
what will the Bureau provide to the States? If the Bureau says
that since its subjective purpose is to count people for
apportionment, and the constitutional amendment says you will
only count citizens, there is no reason for the Bureau to
provide us with that other information for noncitizens.
On the other hand, there is no prohibition, I suppose, in
the sense that they could count citizens, count noncitizens and
provide separate sets of data for both. But that is a whole
bigger question as to operational capabilities.
Mr. Camarota. On the specific question of, if we moved the
specific question of citizenship from the long form to the
short form, it probably wouldn't have that much impact, if any,
on response rates just by itself to simply ask people if they
are citizens. Now but that assumes that the current regime, if
we were to actually begin to enforce our immigration laws, and
then people were to get a survey asking them whether they were
citizens, then maybe that could have an impact.
Research generally shows very little reluctance on the part
of illegals generally. We think that--and this is based on work
done at the Urban Institute and the Census Bureau--we think 90
percent-plus of the illegal aliens, respond not only to the
census but other surveys like the current population survey.
That is how we get demographic information on illegals. The INS
has also done estimates on how many illegals are in the census.
And again, it looks like 90 percent-plus.
So, right now, asking citizenship--and that is, again, all
from surveys that ask whether you are a citizen--it doesn't
appear that people are reluctant to give us that information.
But, again, if we try to enforce the law and people got that
question, then there might be some impact.
Mrs. Maloney. But what you are saying, how in the world
would the Bureau distinguish between a citizen and noncitizen?
Obviously, many people will say they are citizens whether they
are or not. So, how would the Bureau distinguish?
Mr. Camarota. I think, right now, just like we take
everyone's word if you say you are a particular race or an
ethnicity, even though we know from prior research that people
give different answers to that question sometimes--the Census
Bureau has found it can't even get respondents to get the same
answer on the race and ethnicity question the same way each
time it asks. But we just accept it, whatever anyone says. So
you can just accept the census question on citizenship.
Now, people who have tried to look at the actual number of
citizens trying to look at administrative data and figure out
how many citizens there are find that, in general, most
groups--it is not very slated--among Hispanic immigrants there
is a tendency to overstate citizenship, particularly among
Mexican immigrants who may be legal residents but confuse that
with citizenship, we are not sure exactly what is going on.
But, in general, the 18 or 19 million noncitizens in the 2000
census isn't that far off.
And, again, there are lots of other questions that we use
where we just take people's word for it when they say their
race. And, again, that stuff is not set in stone, so you could
just ask and be done with it that way.
Mr. Gonzalez. The other thing I would add, I think it
raises some privacy issues, and we've been down that road with
the Census Bureau. When you start to ask people mathematical
outcome status, you know, you send out messages that
information that is received by the census is private. I think
we saw a situation not too long ago with Arab Americans where
data was released. So I think it raises that issue as well.
Mrs. Maloney. I do also, Mr. Gonzalez, know that, in my
office, there are numerous legal immigrants on the road to
citizenship. And there are many hurdles they have to go
through. And would this proposal disenfranchise that group that
is on the road to citizenship?
Mr. Gonzalez. I think folks clearly understand the
difference between being illegal and being a U.S. citizen and
whether or not they are not legal, particularly from a Latino
perspective.
Mr. Bensen. Could I add one clarification? We have talked
mathematical outcome short form/long form again. I think we
have to have a mind shift here which is--someone can correct me
if I'm wrong--but my understanding is that the current
budgetary situation is, we will in fact have an ACS for the
coming years. We will not have a long form.
So the only census form that will come out in 2010 will be,
in essence, the short form. So whatever happens here if this,
in fact, is adopted and takes effect before then, it would have
to be on the short form, which does address some of the privacy
concerns that were mentioned here and I addressed earlier as
well.
But I think we have to get a mindset here which is, right
now, we will have all this information from noncitizens from
ACS, and we will have it every year, which is, in a sense, from
the standpoint of the shift in the population more interesting.
Mrs. Maloney. That is an important contribution, but as you
said in your testimony, it will not answer the accuracy
question.
Mr. Bensen. I was just trying to clarify----
Mrs. Maloney. The accuracy question is the question. And as
you pointed out in your testimony, it is a huge problem, huge
challenge. And if you can't be accurate, what do you have?
Mr. Bensen. We could not use the ACS data for
apportionment. That would only solve the informational aspects
of it.
Mr. Turner. Thank you. As I stated in my opening comments,
the purposes of this hearing is informational, to let people
know that this is the manner in which apportionment is done and
to have an understanding of the possible impacts subject to
passage of the constitutional amendment proposed by
Congresswoman Miller.
With that, I have basically five things that I am hoping we
can leave this hearing with, and I am going to go through four
of them and ask the panelists to see if I can get consensus
that we all agree on at least these topics. And basically, it
doesn't matter what side of the issue you are on. It doesn't
matter if you think we should only count the citizens or if you
think we should, in 2010, count persons or it is a good thing
that we count persons. Here is a mathematical equation and a
mathematical outcome, so it is not relatively subjective as to
its impact.
So I would like to go over some of those. The first one is
to followup on Congresswoman Miller's question to Mr. Gonzalez,
and that I want to ask the other two witnesses, and that is,
your belief that noncitizens should not be allowed to vote.
Would you confirm that your belief is similar to Mr. Gonzalez?
Mr. Bensen. Well, certainly, yes, my position is----
Mr. Turner. This is an easy one.
Mr. Bensen. My position is perhaps more adamant than that.
I have always had a problem with the fact that noncitizens
indirectly vote for Presidents.
Mr. Turner. We are going to get there. But on a straight
direct vote, your answer would be no?
Mr. Bensen. Yes.
Mr. Camarota. My answer would be as well. Voting should be
reserved for citizens.
Mr. Turner. The second issue--this is a mathematical one
and not a value statement--is that the counting of noncitizens
dilutes the vote of citizens. We have the maps here that show
that coming up--and I will use my State--in 2010, Ohio is
slated to lose two Members of Congress. If the constitutional
amendment was passed, Ohio would, in 2010, by current
projections, gain a Congressman--no?
Mr. Bensen. It would only lose one.
Mr. Turner. It says plus one. So we are going to lose one?
Mr. Bensen. Now, this is in comparison to whether the
citizens were in or not. So in other words, Ohio would only
lose one seat.
Mr. Turner. So then we are to subtract these two, not add
them together. So Ohio would be ahead by not having lost one?
Mr. Bensen. Correct.
Mr. Turner. Having lost another one. So the fact that we
would go from losing two to losing one shows that, as a State,
that our vote in Congress and Ohio is diluted by the fact that
noncitizens are counted in other congressional districts and
congressional representation in seats move.
So the question is, do you agree that counting noncitizens
for the purposes of apportionment dilutes the votes of
citizens? Mr. Bensen.
Mr. Bensen. Yes.
Mr. Camarota. Mathematically, the case, yes, especially in
a low-immigration State like Ohio.
Mr. Gonzalez. No.
Mr. Turner. That is why I was hoping to go through these in
that how, could you explain to me if my State is going to lose
votes in Congress--that means less chairmanships, less members
on committees and less votes--and other States are going to
gain votes in Congress, based on counting noncitizens; how is
it that the counting of noncitizens doesn't dilute the voting?
Mr. Gonzalez. Other States simply have larger--to compare a
State like Ohio and a State like California I think is
comparing apples and oranges, or to compare a State like Ohio
with a State like Texas just in terms of the sheer size of
those kinds of States, regardless of the undocumented
population, they would still have a larger vote and a voice. I
mean, every citizen in the United States has a vote and a voice
the day that they walk into a polling place and cast their
ballot.
Mr. Turner. But their allocation to congressional districts
are diminished by the counting of noncitizens. We have the
charts here that shows in the States that are listed that, as a
result of the counting of noncitizens, in Congress, the
citizens that live in those States have less representation
here. That means, when a matter comes to the floor, their State
has less of a vote because of the counting of noncitizens.
In my view, that dilutes the vote of the citizens. Whether
you are for that or against that, I would think that you would
mathematically have to agree that is occurring.
Mr. Gonzalez. OK, I will go there with you. I will go down
that road with you.
Mr. Turner. So you would agree then that it does dilute
their vote in Congress?
Mr. Gonzalez. In Congress, yes.
Mr. Turner. The third thing is that because that allocation
also has an impact on the allocation of the Electoral College,
it has the potential to impact the outcome of Presidential
elections by counting noncitizens for allocation of the
Electoral College. Mr. Bensen, do you agree?
Mr. Bensen. Definitely, yes.
Mr. Camarota. Undeniably the case, yes.
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Mr. Turner. Because of two and three that we just went
through, it seems to me that goes to the inherent issue in the
constitutional convention in that it impacts the balance of
power between the States. Some States have greater influence in
Congress than other States as a result of the counting of
noncitizen populations within their borders. Mr. Bensen.
Mr. Bensen. Yes.
Mr. Camarota. Yes.
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Mr. Turner. I am going to give one more discussion on what
I consider the fifth topic or my fifth goal for this hearing,
and that is the issue of, how would--if this constitutional
amendment were to pass, how would it be implemented? And we
have heard some of the discussion of the difficulties of
accomplishing that. And I want to give each of you an open
opportunity to express your opinions and your views on, if the
constitutional amendment passed, how it would have an impact on
the administration of the census and the impact it would have
on communities as we attempt to determine citizenship. We will
start with Mr. Bensen.
Mr. Bensen. Well, I don't see much good from the standpoint
of the likely impact of it, aside from the point which I
addressed which is, the operational aspects of the Bureau even
trying to determine this and process the returns when they
can't verify anything, going out and following up on the people
who have not responded to the form, the entire form now,
because they decide not to answer that question.
Now let's assume time-wise it is implemented for the 2010
apportionment, and it goes in. There will inevitably be
litigation over it. However, there will have already been an
apportionment. There will have already been districts drawn for
the 2011 and 2012 elections around the country. Those elections
will be entirely put at jeopardy, and our peaceful transition
of political power may be just totally upside down.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Camarota.
Mr. Camarota. Well, every reapportionment involves
litigation. If we were worried about litigation, I would say,
we just can't have any reapportionment. But on the question of
moving one question from the long form to the short form,
Congresswoman Miller's proposal is not that unreasonable. It
has one big advantage. One of the problems that the Census
Bureau--and I do work for them--that they face is it is very
hard to estimate immigration. We don't know how many people
leave and come and go and that sort of thing. If we have that
question on the short form, in other words, everyone was asked
every 10 years, it would probably be very helpful in terms of
our migration estimates so that, in between the census, it is
conceivable that will actually improve our estimates for things
like the current population survey and the American community
survey which we are not sure how to weight right now because,
quite frankly, we are not sure how many people are coming and
going, especially illegal. The census, by asking everyone that
citizen question, would allow us to identify the foreign born
every 10 years. And it might improve the quality of our data
between the census. But it may also have the effect of
discouraging some people from responding.
There isn't much evidence right now that asking that
question is a problem. In my work for the Census Bureau, I
interview people who actually survey immigrants for their
American community survey. And the citizenship question
sometimes causes some confusion. There is sometimes some
reluctance. But, in general, people seem willing to answer it
right now. And I think that would probably be the case if we
moved it to the short form. But if we actually began to enforce
our immigration laws, then that might change. Then people might
not be. I think that is a question that we are not sure.
But I don't see it as quite this terribly onerous thing. I
think it can be done. And then we just take people at their
word, just like we take people at their word about their race,
even though we know from prior research people don't always
give the same answer on race and ethnicity. We just take them
at their word. That's the way I think it could work.
Mr. Gonzalez. The only thing I would add, Representative,
is--I'll let the professionals at the Census Bureau answer as
far as operationally. I would just go back to the privacy
issue. I think from the work that we do on the census,
particularly census 2000 and 1990, I think it would discourage
people. There would be issues on, you know, what exactly--why
are they asking these kinds of questions, what it means, so
there would be a much larger outreach effort that needs to be
done in terms of trying to get at the answers that they would
be requesting.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bensen, I think I will direct my question to you. I was
reading through your data, and in my State of Pennsylvania, we
often talk about the term brain drain, that we have a hard time
retaining citizens who are between the ages of about 21 to 39,
the second largest elderly population in the Nation as a
percentage of the population after Florida.
And I guess what I am trying to understand is, how much of
the loss of congressional representation in States like
Pennsylvania and Ohio and Michigan, for example, is caused by
that brain drain and simple population migration from the
northeast, Midwest and to the south and west versus noncitizens
being counted over these many decades. As I said, my State,
probably 1930's, had well over 30 Congressmen. In 1960, it was
27, I believe. And today, it is 19. And I am trying to get a
sense, historically, why did we lose all these seats, and how
much of it is attributable to noncitizens being counted in
these high-growth States?
Mr. Bensen. Pennsylvania, I would have to double check, but
it is unique in the sense it has lost at least a seat in
Congress in each of the last----
Mr. Dent. We lost two in 2000, two in 1990 and probably in
1980 as well.
Mr. Bensen. Historically, for several decades, it has
always lost one or two seats.
Mr. Dent. And the good news, according to this data, we are
only going to lose one.
Mr. Bensen. First off, remember that a lot of the
noncitizen stuff we have really--again, since 1980, it was only
3 percent of the population that were noncitizens. So a lot of
that, historically, was not related to that at all. For
Pennsylvania, it is not the predominant factor. The predominant
factor is the brain drain. It is just people leaving the entire
region, not necessarily Pennsylvania but just leaving the
region. This is kind of like another little insult. We are
having trouble already, but now we are going to lose this as
well.
Mr. Dent. And I guess the question is, as you know, there
is discussion in this building about the guest-worker programs.
Do you think that, if we did have a guest-worker program in the
United States, that those guest workers would
disproportionately reside in States with large noncitizen
populations like those in California and Texas and elsewhere?
Mr. Bensen. I am certainly not an expert on that, but
certainly that would seem to be the case.
Mr. Camarota. Sure, certain States are attracting
immigrants. There is no reason to expect a change in that in
the immediate future. Though, over the long-term, all the
evidence would project that over the next 50, 100 years,
immigrants and their descendants will spread out. But if we
were to turn all the illegal aliens in the United States into
guest workers somehow tomorrow, they would continue to likely
reside, and there would be some movement thereafter, and it is
important to note they almost certainly would be counted in the
census.
Mr. Dent. You believe, if we did have a guest-worker
program, they would be counted in the census as people?
Mr. Camarota. In the last census, we counted over a million
people who were guest workers and foreign students by
everyone's estimates, Urban Institute's, Census Bureau, INS,
and in addition to that, we counted 7 or 8 million illegal
aliens. So if we turned them into guest workers--and that
population is now probably about 11 million illegal aliens,
maybe 12--we can expect that some 90 percent of these newly
legalized or guest-workerized illegal aliens will also respond
to the census. Congressional seats will then be drawn for them,
but of course, they can't vote, and all the issues come up. And
that is an important thing to always keep in mind, that even a
guest-worker program has profound consequences for the United
States, including political representation outside of the work
force.
Mr. Bensen. One other thought, just to clarify what he is
saying about the 100 years out, in each of the four censuses
that I looked at, the 1980, 1990, 2000 and projection for 2010,
not only the number of seats that were affected but the number
of States that were affected has risen a lot. And in fact, I
did a couple of different scenarios for 2010, and I had even
more States being affected. So the fact is, as we know, since
many of the noncitizens are Mexicans or of Hispanic origin,
Hispanic-origin people, unlike African-Americans, are scattered
all around the country.
There are a lot of African-American communities, obviously
largely in the south and the urban core and northeast and such,
but Hispanics are really spread out much more. And that is part
of the problem, from the standpoint of the impact on the number
of States. The number of States that are likely to be affected,
again, only one seat, will definitely increase from the
standpoint of where the current trends are because Hispanics
comprise the largest portion of noncitizens who are scattered
all around the country.
Mr. Camarota. I agree. Absent a change in the U.S.
immigration policy, the impact will grow on a State like
Pennsylvania, but in the very long term, we could expect that
immigrants will become--and their descendants--more evenly
distributed. But that is decades from now.
Mr. Dent. Mr. Gonzalez, do you have any thoughts on this?
Mr. Gonzalez. I would disagree. If you look at where the
largest growth is, North Carolina, Georgia, States like that,
that was basically the news of the census 2000 that the
Hispanic community was no longer just in these urban areas; we
had moved to suburban and rural areas.
Mr. Dent. In my congressional district in Pennsylvania, we
have a large Latino population, primarily Puerto Rican, and in
eastern Pennsylvania, we have seen a large growth in the
Hispanic population. But, again, it is, I guess probably not as
many noncitizens because Puerto Ricans are, of course, American
citizens. Well, thank you for your insights. It is very helpful
to me.
Yield back.
Mr. Turner. Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. I was not here when Mr. Turner asked the
question, but I understand he had some questions about
noncitizens diluting the votes of citizens in other States.
Well, I would like to ask the panelists a question.
With regard to the Electoral College, is it not true that
the votes of people in smaller States are worth far more than
those of larger States given the value of the two senators in
their State representation? And isn't my vote diluted, being
from New York, compared to someone in Rhode Island? And do the
panelists think we should do away with the Senate because this
dilutes the votes of people?
Mr. Turner. Which they may be for for other reasons.
Mrs. Maloney. So I would like to start with Mr. Bensen and
have each one of you answer.
Mr. Bensen. Well, the question was not exclusive. It was
more a question, would this be vote dilution? Yes, your
scenario would be that, yes, my home State of Vermont is
obviously far more powerful in the U.S. Congress than your home
State of New York.
Mr. Camarota. Yes. The answer is obviously, big States are
penalized in the Senate, so that there are ways in which votes
get diluted in our system that are not related to the presence
of noncitizens in other States. But nonetheless, the presence
of noncitizens in other States is maybe something we can fix,
assuming we think the Senate is OK the way it is.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, if you are concerned about diluting the
votes, then maybe we should do away with the Senate, too, if
that is your concern.
Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. I would agree with you, again, under that
scenario, I know that a number of our members in New Mexico
very much enjoy the focus that has been placed upon them over
the last few election cycles with their whopping four electoral
votes. Absolutely.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. No further questions.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
We will turn to our third panel. We will thank each of you
for participating, for your preparation and your time today.
Our third panel includes Dr. Ken Prewitt, professor of
public affairs, School of International and Public Affairs,
Columbia University; Mr. Johnny Killian, senior specialist in
constitutional law, American Law Division, Congressional
Research Service; Mr. James Gimpel, professor of government,
University of Maryland; Mr. Andrew Spiropoulos, professor of
law, Oklahoma City University School of Law; Ms. Nina Perales,
Southwestern regional counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund.
I want to thank each of our members of the third panel.
They have prepared written testimony which has been submitted
to the members of the subcommittee. They have been asked then
to provide an oral summary of their testimony, which the
witnesses will notice that there is a timer light on the
witness table. The green light indicates you should begin your
prepared remarks, and the red light indicates the time has
expired. The yellow light will indicate when you have 1 minute
left to conclude your remarks. Your oral testimony presentation
will constitute a time period of 5 minutes. It is the policy of
this committee that all witnesses be sworn in before they
testify. If you would please rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Turner. Please let the record show that all witnesses
responded in the affirmative.
And we will begin with Dr. Prewitt.
STATEMENTS OF KENNETH PREWITT, CARNEGIE PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, COLUMBIA
UNIVERSITY; JOHNNY H. KILLIAN, SENIOR SPECIALIST, AMERICAN
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AMERICAN LAW DIVISION, CONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH SERVICE; JAMES G. GIMPEL, PROFESSOR OF GOVERNMENT,
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK; ANDREW C. SPIROPOULOS,
PROFESSOR OF LAW, OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW; AND
NINA PERALES, SOUTHWESTERN REGIONAL COUNSEL, MEXICAN AMERICAN
LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
STATEMENT OF KENNETH PREWITT
Mr. Prewitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Drawing on my experience as the director of the Census
Bureau and a number of studies that I've conducted on the
census since, I would offer cautionary comments about the
amendment under four headings: Census Accuracy; A Census
Endangered; A Civics Opportunity Lost; The Census and Fairness.
I also believe, before I get to those topics, that the
amendment runs counter to a fundamental principle that has
guided how census-taking and democracy co-evolved starting in
1790. This principle is deliberately, carefully placed into the
Constitution by the Nation's Founders. The Founders were
mindful that numbers were political, especially in a
representative democracy. And because of this, they designed
the decennial census to be the apolitical, nonpartisan starting
point whose end points were appropriately political and
partisan.
This was their genius, to keep the taking of the census out
of politics so that the results of the census could be used in
politics. It is this principle that is at risk should this
amendment be adopted.
It will be widely portrayed as a political instruction to
the Census Bureau to count in such a way that one set of
partisan interests are advanced and another retarded. Whether
this is the intent of the sponsors is not at issue. Motivations
do not interest me. Consequences do.
It is inevitable that the extensive and heated public
debate over this amendment will endlessly repeat that partisan
interests are behind the change in how the census is taken.
This will erode a basic principle that was clearly of
importance to the Founders and has served the Nation for more
than two centuries.
I urge the sponsors to reflect deeply before taking this
step. There will be no turning back.
Let me then turn to census accuracy. The proposed amendment
will lead to a less complete and less accurate census. A
significant number of noncitizens will not respond to the
decennial census. Many members of the public, citizens and
noncitizens alike, are wary about the census. I remind you of
the privacy debate that erupted in 2000. Many political leaders
were quick to denounce the census as a violation of privacy.
The decennial census came to symbolize an invasive Federal
Government.
One Member of Congress said, ``I am happy to voluntarily
cooperate with the government in areas where I decide it makes
sense. Beyond that, it starts to meet the definition of
intrusive.''
A Senate leader advised the public to ``just fill out what
you need to fill out and [not] anything you feel uncomfortable
with.'' The Senate passed a nonbinding resolution urging that
no American be prosecuted, fined or in any way harassed by the
Federal Government for not answering questions on the census
form.
The privacy debate in 2000 underscores the general wariness
in our public about what is viewed as government intrusiveness.
The proposed amendment plays into this wariness by highlighting
that the government has some need on a block-by-block basis to
distinguish citizens from noncitizens. The nuanced reasons for
this, well expressed by those who testify in support of this
amendment, will be lost to the millions upon millions of
Americans. This question will be treated with suspicion.
Taking their cue from national leaders who, in 2000, said,
``skip the questions you don't like or find intrusive,'' many
American citizens as well as noncitizens will do just that, and
accuracy will suffer.
In addition, the huge partnership program that was mounted
in 2000 to solicit census cooperation rested upon an argument
that if you are not counted, you are not represented. Many of
those partners will simply not step forward if this amendment
is passed, especially, I believe, the Catholic Church.
A Census Endangered: The Congress, if endorsed in this case
by three-fourths of the States, can absorb, I think, some
deterioration in quality and decide that is a worthwhile
tradeoff to realize the purposes of the amendment.
If, however, the Congress were to instruct the Census
Bureau to validate the citizen status of census respondents,
much more of the data quality is at stake. There is nothing in
terms of the amendment to suggest that this is what anyone has
in mind. But it is foolish to expect that census-taking is
immune from anxieties that surround such issues as undocumented
aliens, immigration enforcement and so forth.
I can promise you that, if the conversation moves from
census citizen to noncitizen, to aid illegals and legals, that
this concern will be magnified in the Congress or in the
country.
Finally, I would like to say this is an opportunity lost.
Under the new terms of the census, we have a marvelous
opportunity to teach the American public a civics lesson. I
have in mind that promotion and advertising can emphasize the
connection between population numbers and political
representation. Such a message will increase public
understanding of how our democracy works. The sequence from
population distribution to apportionment and redistricting, and
from there to elections, from elections to public policy is not
well understood by the general public.
A mobilization campaign of the scope used in 2000 could be
a civics lesson. More ambitiously, it could be designed as a
civics ceremony. Imagine 535 Members of Congress completing
their census forms at the Jefferson Memorial on census day.
The census is, in fact, the only such civics ceremony
available to the American public. Our national holidays no
longer perform this service. The census has the merit of being
inclusive. Everyone is to be counted. It is hopefully
nonpartisan. It has consequences for the fundamental workings
of our democracy at the national, State and local levels.
It is certainly the only civic event that has its origins
in the Constitution. The civics lesson, of course, would be
foregone if the census is not viewed as the nonpartisan
starting point of political representation. And I think this
amendment will derail that principle.
There is also the issue of fairness; no taxation without
representation. That argument will once again be heard. It will
be the Boston Tea Party all over. This is clearly a no taxation
without representation. The amendment is also a military
service without representation, of course.
What is special about the census is its reputation for
advancing principles of fairness in American political life.
This reputation rests on the deep principle that representation
is allocated to a portion of the population size, not the
counts to distinguish property owners from nonproperty owners,
the educated from the uneducated, the voters from nonvoters,
citizens from noncitizens. These distinctions have a place in
public policy but not in the fundamental starting point from
which all public policy springs.
In conclusion, representative democracy has come a long way
since 1790 when a handful of Senators and Representatives
assembled to start the great experiment in self-government.
Census-taking has come a long way since 1790. As anticipated by
the Constitution, the census has carried the heavy weight
assigned to it in what can rightly be described as America's
longest continuous scientific undertaking.
Census accuracy and fairness matter to this story. However,
let us grant that a less accurate and less fair census can
still carry the weight assigned to it by the Constitution.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Prewitt, you need to conclude.
Mr. Prewitt. We can still redistrict. And perhaps this is
the price that we should pay. But I am less confident about the
future of the census if it is thought by millions upon millions
of Americans to have been designed to advance partisan
interests, even if this intent is absent among the amendment
sponsors. A census so understood will cease to command the
respect and confidence that we rely upon. I urge the Congress
to respect the genius of the Founders who take great care to
separate how the census is taken from the political uses to
which the numbers are applied. We undo their craftsmanship at
our peril. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Prewitt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.048
Mr. Turner. Mr. Killian.
STATEMENT OF JOHNNY H. KILLIAN
Mr. Killian. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, as an
employee of the Congressional Research Service, I am of course
obligated to give Members of Congress objective and nonpartisan
advice and information.
As a consequence, I cannot address the merits of this
proposal and say yea or nay with regard to whether it should be
adopted, whether it should be defeated or what not. My purpose,
as I understand it, in appearing before the committee is to
talk about several aspects, the constitutional amending
process, the basis in the Constitution of using the total
numbers of the population for purposes of apportionment, and,
if there may be some questions regarding that that would be
raised if the amendment were adopted.
In the first place, I think we need to notice, with regard
to the original Constitution, and the Constitution amended by
the 14th amendment, that with regard to the use of the total
population for apportionment, there are two significant
provisions in the Constitution. One is that the States
determine the qualifications of the voters in each State. That
is, the Constitution provides that voting qualifications for
Members of the House and consequently the Senate and the
electors and the Electoral College is based on the
qualifications that each State of electors for the more
populous House of the legislature.
Second, there is a time, place and manner clause which
gives the States the power to determine how and what manner the
full details of election of Representatives and Senators, but
it also gives the Congress the power to displace any or all of
those regulations so that a lot of the questions that might be
raised by the amendment, by the change from total population,
citizen population, would of course raise questions under these
two.
Second, I think we need to take a look at some of the
constitutional amendment problems that have arisen in the past.
There is no prospect, I think, of Congress addressing most of
those in the amendment, in the text of the amendment. The
question simply is to evaluate how there might be questions.
We have a prospective of time limitations for instance. The
time limitation in this proposal is 7 years, as in previous
amendments. It is in the proposing resolution, not in the text
of the amendment itself. It used to be in the text of the
amendment itself. Congress changed that when scholars began
saying, why are you cluttering up the Constitution with things
like time limitations? So it put in a resolution. That created
a serious debate with respect to the Equal Rights Amendment. As
you are all aware, the Equal Rights Amendment, as the time for
ratification began to run, ratification was not completed,
Congress debated and then adopted a resolution extending the
time period to 10 years, adding on another 3 years. The
assertion was that because it was not in the text of the
amendment itself on which the States had acted, the Congress
had the power.
We don't know the correct answer to this. The expiration of
the time limitation meant that it was never resolved by the
Supreme Court or another body. It should, however, I think be
of interest to the committee, to Members of Congress generally,
in considering where the present time limitation is.
Last, there is a question with regard to what other
interpretive problems adoption of the amendment might raise. If
the amendment were adopted and apportionment is based on
citizen population, would States that do the districting be
limited as well to total citizen population, or could they
continue to do total population including noncitizens?
Obviously, Congress might, by using the time, place and
manner clause, regulate distance to some extent. Otherwise we
are going to have court decisions running through this.
Congress does not have to resolve this issue, but should be
aware that, in terms of the present language of the proposal,
that this would be raised.
I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Killian follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.052
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Killian.
Mr. Gimpel.
STATEMENT OF JAMES G. GIMPEL
Mr. Gimpel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me. I
appreciate your effort to tackle a troubling issue. I have
learned a lot from the other panelists already here this
morning.
As the other testimony at the hearing makes clear, re-
apportionment and redistricting based on noncitizen settlement
patterns are profoundly affecting Congress and America's
political process in unanticipated ways.
Clearly, today's congressional districts are not equal in
critical respects that matter greatly to the operation of our
government. Consider what it takes to get elected to a seat
where there were only 60,000 voters compared to one where there
are eight or nine times that many to be reached in the course
of an election campaign.
Consider the fundraising burden alone, for example, and how
un-equal that is. Consider also the unequal workloads of the
Members of Congress who represent these very highly unequal
districts. Survey data have shown decisively that citizens are
far more demanding of Members of Congress than noncitizens,
even after we consider the casework associated with
naturalization and citizenship.
As a consequence of representing a large share of
noncitizens, one Member may have to chase only a small fraction
of the Social Security checks that another does. One Member
must respond to only half the amount of constituent mail. To be
sure, noncitizens and nonvoters also contact congressional
offices, but they do so far less frequently than citizens,
hence even if Members of Congress do respond to noncitizen
requests for assistance, the work loads are still highly
unequal. One Member of the U.S. House should not have to spread
her staff more thinly to cover her constituents' demands than
another simply because of the presence of noncitizens in the
apportionment base.
Real examples are out there. So we don't have to confine
ourselves to hypotheticals. Consider several of the immigrant-
heavy southern California congressional districts. We might
consider the 31st, as Representative Miller did in her remarks,
the 33rd or perhaps the 37th. In 2004, a year of record high
turnout around the Nation, only 110,460 votes were cast in the
33rd district contest, and the incumbent was re-elected with
74\1/2\ percent of the vote. In 2002, the same incumbent was
re-elected by a similar margin in a contest that saw a mere
65,800 votes cast. In 2002, the incumbent in the 37th district
was re-elected in a contest that saw only 88,000 votes cast.
And in 2004, this Member ran unopposed.
Now let's pull out two districts from Michigan and Ohio.
Lots of districts would make the comparison, but we will pick
two for the sake of illustration. Take the 12th District of
Michigan and the 17th District of Ohio. Either one or both of
these seats could be reconfigured or lost entirely in the 2010
reapportionment simply because their constituents happen to be
unlucky enough to be born in this country. There is something
about our moral intuitions that just doesn't gibe with that
outcome.
Now both of those Members, Representative Ryan and
Representative Levin were re-elected by solid margins, similar
to those of their colleagues in California, but the task of
representation and of running for re-election is very different
from what the California Members face. Because the California
districts contain thousands of noncitizens and the Michigan and
Ohio districts rather few, the Midwestern districts may
disappear in 2010 because the constituents of these two Members
were unlucky enough to be citizens.
A Member of Congress who receives 200,000 votes will be
thrown out, and the one who has received only 50,000 will be
retained only because of noncitizens in the apportionment
phase.
Folks, the perverse moral of the current system is clear:
The greater the proportion of citizens in a State, the fewer
congressional seats that State receives. You can actually
quantify the current penalty of citizenship on congressional
apportionment, and the precise relationship is shown in figure
1 in my testimony. I had it on a Power Point, but we couldn't
get it up there today. But you can see it if you turn to figure
1 on page 6.
Figure 1 indicates that, for every 1 percent increase in
percentage of citizens in the State in 2000, there is a 1.7
drop--we could round to 2--in the number of congressional seats
the State received in the decennial reapportionment. Now,
naturally this relationship is an artifact of where noncitizens
flow, that is to the more populous States, but it is still very
striking and provides a concrete estimate of the impact of the
geographic concentration of noncitizens on a political system.
Could it some day be the case that a congressional district is
created that has literally no citizens inside it? None?
Completely hollow?
Theoretically, this is clearly possible, although a State
legislature would surely be sensible enough to stop short of
this. Nearly hollow districts do exist though, and the
proliferation of such districts does tax the citizenship status
of all Americans.
Solutions. Well, we can pass Representative Miller's
amendment and, you know, tough out the consequences with
respect to census administration. I might add, by the way, that
the census has been changed many, many times, and we have
toughed it out in the past.
Another solution, well, let everybody vote; let's do away
with citizenship as a pathway to voting, give everyone the
right to vote and forget about citizenship as a means toward
obtaining voting rights. You know, good luck passing that. I
don't think that is very viable.
One thing we could do, I suppose, that Steve Camarota
recommended in his testimony, would be to reduce immigration
levels. That would certainly mitigate the impact at least over
time.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Gimpel, you're going to have to conclude
your remarks.
Mr. Gimpel. Or we could leave things as they are, of
course, which is probably the most likely scenario I think. But
I will just finish up by saying, until we decide how to address
this serious vote-dilution problem, American voters will suffer
from unequal representation. Congress and the executive branch
should work together to restore fairness and integrity to the
electoral process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gimpel follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.073
Mr. Turner. Mr. Spiropoulos.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW C. SPIROPOULOS
Mr. Spiropoulos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
committee for inviting me.
The central legal question regarding H.J. Res. 53 is
whether such an amendment is necessary or whether such a change
may be made by statute.
In order to answer this question with regard to aliens
residing in the United States, one must consider legal and
illegal aliens separately. It is my opinion that section 2 of
the 14th amendment stating that apportionment must be based on
the whole number of persons in each State rather than
citizenship requires that aliens legally residing in the United
States be counted toward the number of persons used for
apportionment purposes.
The Constitution therefore must be amended if legal aliens
are to be excluded from the number of persons counted for
apportion purposes. The Constitution does provide, however, the
national government some discretion to determine who is truly
an inhabitant of a State for the purposes of apportionment.
It is my opinion that it is within the legitimate
discretion of Congress to instruct the Census Bureau by statute
to exclude illegal aliens from the census conducted for
apportionment purposes. In addition to evidence gleaned from
the records of the framing and ratification of both the
Constitution in 1787 and the 14th amendment, this
interpretation is confirmed by the unbroken practice of the
national government. With regard to legal aliens, the
government has always sought to count all inhabitants, not only
citizens. It has never been disputed, either by members of the
government or legal commentators that legal aliens taking up
legal residence in the United States are inhabitants of the
State in which they reside. They pay taxes, may consume the
full range of government services and, as demonstrated by the
level of protection afforded them under the equal protection
clause, are, except for the privileges directly flowing from
citizenship, established members of society. This longstanding
practice and understanding not only constitute evidence of the
original meaning of the provisions, they should lead a
reasonable court to presume that legal and political
institutions and practices have been established upon the
reasonable expectation that such practices, absent
extraordinary circumstances, will continue.
The question of whether the Constitution requires that
aliens residing illegally in the United States be counted is
far more difficult. Whether illegal aliens are necessarily
included in ``the whole number of persons in each State'' is
not clearly resolved by either the original meaning of the text
or the intent of the drafters. The Framers of the provisions at
issue did not know of or contemplate the problem of illegal
immigration. We do know, however, that the Framers'
understanding of ``persons in each State'' was based on the
notion that such a person was a demonstrated inhabitant of that
jurisdiction. This concept of ``inhabitant'' is not self-
defining. The legislature and the executive operating subject
to that legislature's authority must define it. The census-
taking authorities in the past have exercised discretion
regarding, for example, U.S. Military and diplomatic personnel
residing overseas, foreign tourists and foreign diplomatic
personnel residing in the United States. This past practice
demonstrates that the national government has always exercised
some discretion regarding who qualifies as an inhabitant for
the purpose of census-taking.
Unlike with legal aliens, one cannot conclude that illegal
aliens must be considered inhabitants of a State. Given their
liability to expeditious deportation, the limited
constitutional protections afforded to them, their necessary
avoidance of the regular interaction between residents and
government entities and, perhaps most importantly, their
refusal to consent to the fundamental laws and norms of this
society, it cannot be said that the Constitution mandates that
illegal aliens are sufficiently connected to a particular State
to be considered an inhabitant of it.
It is certainly true that the national government has,
without exception, chosen to this point to include illegal
aliens in that definition. I do not offer any opinion as to the
wisdom of this choice or a different one. My contention is
that, just as the government may decide that illegal aliens are
inhabitants, so it may decide that they are not. Therefore, it
is my opinion that the Congress may, by statute, instruct the
Census Bureau to exclude illegal aliens from the census
conducted for apportionment purposes.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spiropoulos follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.080
Mr. Turner. Ms. Perales.
STATEMENT OF NINA PERALES
Ms. Perales. Chairman Turner and members of the House
Government Reform Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census, I
am Nina Perales, Southwest regional counsel of the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund [MALDEF]. We are a
nonpartisan organization founded in Texas in 1968 to defend and
protect Latino civil rights, including voting rights.
Thank you for inviting me to testify regarding House Joint
Resolution 53.
Restricting apportionment to citizens as H.J. Res. 53
proposes contravenes the intent of the Framers of the 14th
amendment. Section 2, clause one of the 14th amendment, which
was adopted to override the infamous three-fifths rule by which
slaves were not counted as full persons for the purposes of
apportionment, has never restricted congressional
representation to citizens only.
The Framers of the 14th amendment could have restricted
representation by limiting the numbers used for apportionment
by a variety of factors, including race, gender or nationality.
Instead, they chose to apportion the seats in the House of
Representatives based upon total population, despite the
existence of a substantial foreign-born population in the
United States in the 1860's, a foreign-born population larger
than that in the United States today.
Ensuring that congressional representation flows to all
people equally is sound public policy. Each individual,
regardless of whether he or she can currently exercise the
franchise, should receive the benefits of representation by
their elected officials.
A congressional representative serves as more than just the
voice of the people who can vote or of those people who voted
for him or her during the last election. Congressional
representatives serve all individuals in their districts,
including children and other nonvoters, by bringing critical
resources to the district and representing the economic and
social interests of all who live in the district.
The primary effect of H.J. Res. 53 will be to strip
representation from U.S. citizens. It will shift congressional
seats away from high-population States that are composed
overwhelmingly of U.S. citizens but which also contain higher
numbers of noncitizens than other States. Texas, my State, is
one such State. If apportionment were conducted today based on
total population, Texas would receive an additional
congressional seat, and each Member of Congress from Texas
would represent approximately 664,000 people. H.J. Res. 53
would deny Texas that congressional seat, forcing an extra
20,000 people into the district of each member of the Texas
delegation. In effect, 19.6 million U.S. citizens living in
Texas would have less representation in Congress.
Furthermore, stripping representation from States with
noncitizens necessarily has a disparate impact upon Latino U.S.
citizens. More than one-half of legal immigration is family
based. And among legal immigrants who come to the United States
to be with their family, most are from Mexico. Because many of
these legal immigrants are living and working today in
predominately Latino communities across the United States, this
measure will serve to shift representation away from States
containing more Latino citizens and permanent legal residents
to other States with higher citizen populations and fewer
Latinos.
Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada, New York and Texas
all have in common substantial Latino populations, and all
would be worse off with a restrictive apportionment scheme in
which noncitizens are excluded. Those who want to restrict
apportionment suggest that the number of voters in an election
is primarily determined by the number of citizens in the
congressional district. In truth, voter registration and
turnout is by far the great determinant of the weight of a
voter's vote, not the number of citizens residing in an
electoral district. It is utterly groundless to suggest that
noncitizenship is responsible for the voter turnout levels of
U.S. citizens.
The 14th amendment, which declared the quality of all
persons under the law, should not be changed to restrict
congressional representation of citizens, particularly racial
minority citizens, based on the State in which they happen to
live. H.J. Res. 53 serves no other legitimate policy purpose
and places unwarranted burdens upon the congressional
representatives in disfavored States.
I want to add on a personal note that I am offended by the
interchangeable use of noncitizen and undocumented immigrant in
this hearing. To conflate those two terms suggests that all
immigrants in the United States are criminal aliens and law
breakers. It is offensive to me, and it is offensive to the
Latino community. I strongly urge you to reject House Joint
Resolution 53.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Perales follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.084
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
And when I began my opening comments as the chairman of
this committee, Federalism and the Census, census having the
obligation for actually the count that results in
apportionment, I made clear that this is an informational
hearing, that the issues that we wanted to discuss related to
the impact of the proposed constitutional amendment, but also
because I truly believe that most citizens aren't aware of how
the current apportionment process works and its impact on the
fact that the Constitution and its application currently looks
to persons instead of citizens.
This is an important function that has nothing to do with
the issue of policy. Policy is whether or not we should do this
or should not do this, and the impacts that it would have.
It includes the discussion of the historical perspective:
Why did our Founding Fathers do this? What was the intent? What
was the expectation? Was it intended? But the realty is that,
on a nonpolicy perspective, that most of what we are talking
about is a straight, mathematical application. The information
aspect of what happens as a result of counting noncitizens
versus counting merely citizens is not an issue that goes to
policy. It is a mathematical outcome of which we should all be
aware, whether we are for or against the changing of that
application.
So going to those purposes I am going to go through this
panel in this like manner that I did the other to make certain
that we have a narrowing of the issues because policy is very
important and that is something that will really go beyond this
hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to inform as to the
application of the current method of apportionment.
My first question goes to the issue to make certain that no
one has any belief that there is any underlying sinister
purpose here, and that goes to the question of asking each of
the members of the panel whether or not they believe that
noncitizens should be allowed to vote, my expectation being
that we will all share the value that noncitizens should not be
allowed to vote.
I will begin with you, Dr. Prewitt.
Mr. Prewitt. Correct.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Killian.
Mr. Killian. With one reservation, I would say. There was--
--
Mr. Turner. Would you take the mic, please.
Mr. Killian. Excuse me. There was the historical practice
after the Civil War and extending into the first part of the
20th century of a number of States, primarily Western States
which wanted to encourage immigration into them, of allowing
noncitizens to vote provided that they swore an oath----
Mr. Turner. I'm not asking from a historical perspective, I
am asking from your personal belief. You personally believe
noncitizens should not be allowed to vote.
Mr. Killian. As a general matter I do not believe that.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Gimpel.
Mr. Gimpel. I agree.
Mr. Spiropoulos. Yes.
Mr. Turner. Ms. Perales.
Ms. Perales. MALDEF takes the same position but also
recognizes that certain States and localities have exercised
the option to enfranchise noncitizens.
Mr. Turner. The purpose--so no one becomes confused--of
this hearing is to discuss voting by noncitizens.
A second issue, counting of noncitizens in the
apportionment of congressional district results in the dilution
of the votes of citizens in Congress. Doctor Prewitt.
Mr. Prewitt. Yes, just as the noncounting of felons dilutes
the vote of those who are felon districts, the noncounting of
the young rewards those districts which have more elderly than
the young.
Mr. Turner. We count the young. You were good on the other
one.
Mr. Prewitt. No, no, no.
Mr. Turner. In the census for citizenship.
Mr. Prewitt. I'm saying that a district which happens to be
composed of the elderly has its vote diluted compared to a
district with a higher percentage of young people in.
Mr. Turner. I understand now what you are saying.
We have limited time.
Mr. Killian.
Mr. Killian. I would agree with that.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Gimpel.
Mr. Gimpel. Yes.
Mr. Spiropoulos. Sure.
Mr. Turner. Ms. Perales.
Ms. Perales. No, the statement is not correct.
Mr. Turner. We will get back to that then because the issue
is a mathematical one here. If you count only citizens, first
count citizens and noncitizens, mathematically it would have to
be a dilution because you are spreading representation over a
larger number. So it's mathematical, it's not a policy issue,
not a value system, Ms. Perales. Would you still say that it
does not dilute the vote of citizens--I'm sorry, does not
dilute the representation of citizens in Congress?
Ms. Perales. Respectfully, Representative Turner, Mr.
Chairman, it is with respect to representation and not the
vote.
Mr. Turner. I misstated it when I restated it to you but my
first question was representation of citizens in Congress.
Would you agree with that?
Ms. Perales. We would disagree because representation flows
to all individuals, not only to voters, and thus counting all
persons----
Mr. Turner. I asked whether mathematically the counting of
noncitizens does or does not dilute the votes of citizens in
Congress?
Ms. Perales. It does not dilute the votes of citizens.
Mr. Turner. Thank you for your answer.
Going to the third question then, because the appropriation
process impacts the allocation of electoral votes, the counting
of noncitizens has a potential for the impact of the outcome of
Presidential elections.
Doctor Prewitt.
Mr. Prewitt. Just like in the noncounting of anyone will
have that impact. Of course, by definition.
Mr. Turner. Mathematical.
Mr. Prewitt. Vote dilution is an incredibly important issue
and I am glad we are discussing it. There are costs to trying
to manage it.
Mr. Turner. That's question No. 5. Only on this one. Mr.
Killian.
Mr. Killian. Yes, with that qualification.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Gimpel.
Mr. Gimpel. Yes.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Spiropoulos.
Mr. Spiropoulos. Yes.
Mr. Turner. Ms. Perales.
Ms. Perales. Yes. If I understand the question I'm
answering.
Mr. Turner. The fourth thing is that the counting of
noncitizens having an impact on apportionment and
representation then in Congress has an impact on the balance of
power between the States in Congress.
Mr. Prewitt.
Mr. Prewitt. Yes.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Killian.
Mr. Killian. Yes.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Gimpel.
Mr. Gimpel. Yes.
Mr. Spiropoulos. Yes.
Mr. Turner. Ms. Perales.
Ms. Perales. Yes.
Mr. Turner. The fifth is an open question to give you the
opportunity to discuss what you have been wanting to discuss.
Dr. Prewitt; briefly, if we could give each of you an
opportunity to talk on the issue of the impacts. This is if we
were to do this, what would be the impacts. You can talk about
the impacts on populations and individuals, you can talk about
the purity of the census as it is currently viewed. But if each
of you would take a moment on that then we will turn to Mrs.
Maloney.
Mr. Prewitt. Yes. It would be repetitious. It will have an
impact on quality, impact on fairness. It simply will have that
impact. That's empirical, factual; mathematical, if you will,
in your vocabulary. I also think it will have a big impact upon
the reception of the census in our body politic today and I
think that has a down side that this committee really ought to
consider.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Killian.
Mr. Killian. In light of the restraints on me by my
service, I don't think I can answer that question.
Mr. Turner. We'll accept that.
Mr. Gimpel.
Mr. Gimpel. I think it would strengthen the value of
citizenship and incidentally also stimulate a pretty rapid move
toward naturalization. It would provide quite an incentive to
naturalize, I think. Just off the top of my head those are two
things that would come of it.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Spiropoulos.
Mr. Spiropoulos. Speaking with regard to the constitutional
amendment as opposed to the statute that I had discussed, I
think if you did the constitutional amendment you would be
shifting the basis of representation in the original
Constitution the way the framers envisioned it. That would be
the underlying change if you exclude legal aliens. The other
sets of impacts discussed earlier would be on the census. I
think you might have great damage to the census if you were to
tie census taking to questions regarding immigration.
Mr. Turner. Ms. Perales.
Ms. Perales. Because the exercise of the franchise is
analytically distinct from congressional representation which
flows to all persons through total count in apportionment, the
effect of the proposed measure would be more to shift
representation away from the States that I described in my
testimony and would have little to no impact on the exercise of
the franchise or what is referred to as vote dilution. Those
are really separate effects, one of which is great and the
other which is small.
Mr. Turner. Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you very much. I would like to ask Dr.
Prewitt and I'd like you to respond to this notion that if we
exclude some subset of the population in the census for
apportionment purposes, what other groups might be considered
for exclusion down the road? I would like everyone to answer.
What other groups besides----
Mr. Prewitt. Well, I would worry that felons might be
considered excludable as a category that we obviously don't let
vote in many of our States. I mean ex-felons, not necessarily
those in prison but ex-felons who have done their time would be
excluded. That would be a candidate group. I have no idea what
we would finally decide about those psychologically incapable
of exercising a vote because of their mental processes. There
have been times in this society when we have worried about
excluding the so-called insane. I am not predicting that would
happen but there are categories of our population simply less
well integrated than other categories and I would worry if we
start down this road of making distinctions at this starting
point of the representational process, that it opens the
opportunity to make distinctions along other lines.
Mrs. Maloney. Does anyone else have ideas of who might be
excluded. Would you think they might want to exclude the
homeless, possibly those that are in hospitals? Can you think
of any other subset that might be considered to be excluded,
Mr. Killian?
Mr. Killian. The matter of ex-felons, convicted persons who
are felons confined in prison is something of a problem in some
States because prisons generally are constructed in rural areas
of the State so that the counting of the prison population
within that county enlarges the county's representation, so
that might enter into some of this.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Gimpel, can you think of other subsets?
Mr. Gimpel. I think, Representative Maloney, you made a
very perceptive point in response to the first panel when you
called our attention to the fact that there are different types
of vote dilution and I think that what we would have to do as
these cases come up, if someone says votes are being diluted
for this reason or that is take them on a case by case basis as
we are in this particular instance, discuss it, see where it
goes. But I think you are right, there are different types of
vote dilution. Do we want to change the Senate scheme of
apportionment. Well, remember that the Founding Fathers with
respect to the U.S. Senate thought that States needed to be
represented in the Federal system as administrative units. So
they deserve representation as units of government
administration, but certainly that's a case, as you pointed out
in response to the first panel, of a kind of vote dilution.
That does trouble some people. That should be taken up in a
series of hearings too, perhaps.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Spiropoulos.
Mr. Spiropoulos. I think it's important not to confuse
issues here. I think it is important to focus really on the
underlying problem that is motivating all this, which is the
question of illegal immigration. There is no one who seriously
wants to exclude any group of our society from participation of
voting or being represented. The question here is to focus on
the problem, very difficult problem and hard to deal with and I
think that's what we need to focus on.
The second thing is that the national government has always
exercised discretion in administering the census and
determining who an inhabitant is. You cannot get away from the
fact that you have to make choices, the administration will
have to make decisions on how to define the key terms that
underlie the scheme that you are administering.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, I agree with you that we have to
exercise discretion. That's why I'm asking this question. Maybe
we would like to exercise discretion in other categories. But I
would differ with your first statement that the hearing is
about immigration. This hearing is about apportionment and
representation and possibly the dilution of a vote.
I would like to ask Ms. Perales, in your testimony you
mentioned that at one time the Census Bureau counted Blacks as
three-fifths of a person, is that correct?
Ms. Perales. No, apportionment. Slaves.
Mrs. Maloney. Counted slaves as three-fifths of a person,
is that correct?
Ms. Perales. That is correct.
Mrs. Maloney. Do you think that possibly we could consider
counting women less since they are paid $0.79 to the dollar.
That's a Bureau of Labor Statistics point that they are paid
$0.79 to the dollar for like work. Do you think that a woman
could be counted less in the census as a discretionary
movement?
Ms. Perales. Once you unhook representation from the
people, all persons, as required by the Constitution, once you
unlink those concepts the extremes are without limit in terms
of how you would take away representation from groups of
people.
To answer the previous question, the largest structural
group of nonvoters obviously is children. Why not exclude
children from apportionment? They cannot vote. We will catch up
to them later after they turn 18. Why not exclude----
Mrs. Maloney. So we have gotten felons, prisoners, the
insane, and those in insane asylums, now possibly children,
since they can't vote, maybe we shouldn't count children for
apportionment. Can you think of any other area?
Ms. Perales. Yes, the most frightening extreme is that one
carries the idea of voting or the exercise of the franchise all
the way to become synonymous with representation, meaning that
you don't get counted for apportionment unless you're a
registered voter or don't get counted unless you turned out in
the last election or, God forbid, that you voted for the
decumbent.
Mrs. Maloney. What about Alzheimer's? Do you think they
would put that in there? One of my good friends, she's 61 years
old, she has just come down with Alzheimer's. Maybe she
shouldn't be counted because she really has some challenges
now. Do you think Alzheimer's could go into that list too?
Ms. Perales. Certainly any limitation once you stop giving
representation to the people is within the bounds of
imagination and, by the way, would all have to be listed on the
short form of the census.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you very much.
Mr. Killian, I would like to go back to your testimony on
constitutional amendments. And I recall that in 1993 an
amendment that began in the 1700's was finally ratified. And
you talked about the time limits being very important. How many
amendments have passed without a time limit and how many
amendments have had a time limit? When did they start or when
did Congress start a time limit?
Mr. Killian. The first amendment with a time limit issue
was the 18th amendment imposing prohibition, which was proposed
and ratified roughly around 1920. The reason that time
limitations began to come in was there was a debate with regard
to whether amendments that had been proposed a long time ago
were still alive and whether States could still act, and the
idea was to begin placing time limitations in the amendment. Of
course the old amendments did not have a time limitation. And
with respect to the present 27th amendment, so-called Madison
amendment which was 1 of the 12 amendments proposed by Congress
in 1789, which 10 were ratified and became the Bill of Rights,
that was still of interest to some people because it provided
for a required layover between the time Congress voted for a
pay increase, required intervening election before it would
take effect.
And from time to time a State or two States ratified, and
finally in 1992, 1993 enough States had ratified over the long
period of time so that the amendment was ratified. The only
question was: Was it validly ratified because of the amount of
time that had run? And Congress, both Houses of Congress passed
resolutions saying yes, it had been, and the executive branch
official responsible for certifying it, the Archivist of the
United States, certified it.
Mrs. Maloney. I want to thank all of the panelists and your
historic understanding is important. All of your testimony has
really deepened my understanding. I think once you start down
this road of disqualifying or not counting certain people, it
certainly opens up the possibility that other people will not
be counted, and I think it is a very, very serious question and
personally I do not think that we should move away from our
Founding Fathers, who directed this country so brilliantly,
that everyone should be counted. Thank you.
Mr. Turner. Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might mention, and
I appreciate the historical perspective that we have talked
about today. I think this is really a very interesting debate
and I am a person who believes in the goodness of the American
people and that we will come to the right decision to ensure
freedom, liberty, democracy, protection for all American
citizens and has been stated here by a couple of our panelists,
that we should honor the original intent of our Founding
Fathers.
Actually, the original language, if we should honor the
intent of our Founding Fathers, the original language said we
were to count all free persons, including those bound to a term
of service, minus Indians not taxed, plus three-fifths of other
persons, meaning slaves. So I honor our Founding Fathers,
although I don't honor that part of their thinking. So I think
it is appropriate for us to amend the Constitution to protect
all American citizens, and that is what I am proposing with
this resolution.
I do not see this as a partisan issue in any way, perhaps a
regional issue, but it is a nonpartisan issue in my mind. It is
simply an issue of fairness, it is a fundamental caveat to our
democracy, which is the one man, or one woman as I say, one
vote. I think that is very important and I think this goes
right to the heart of that. And Mr. Gimpel had mentioned that
it was his observation that perhaps seeing this resolution pass
and this amendment to our Constitution pass would actually be
perhaps an impetus, give immigrants another incentive to become
American citizens, and he had made that comment and I guess I
would ask the rest of the panel if you feel that could be a
consequence of passing this. Start with Dr. Prewitt.
Mr. Prewitt. Historically immigrant groups do naturalize at
roughly a pace which I could describe historically in detail,
but they do gradually naturalize, they learn English, they buy
homes, they intermarry across the boundaries, as the Italians
and Irish and Poles, so forth, as today the immigrants are, the
Hispanics are and Asians and so forth. So I don't see this as
an extra incentive whatsoever to the naturalization process. I
think that will unfold in due course.
We have some 30,000 noncitizens now in the military, and I
do think that because they are in the military and the
President agrees we should hasten their citizenship, but we
will take them even if they decide not to naturalize.
And I do worry about the no taxation without representation
point. The Boston Tea Party is a part of our founding
mythology, if you will, and it's odd at this time in our
history we would go back to no taxation without representation.
So I guess I am not worried about the naturalization
phenomenon. I just see it unfolding in due course as it always
has. The second and third generation is very different from the
first, and so forth.
So I see the opposite; that this will create an anxiety in
this population at the current time and an anger at the Federal
Government, especially among the Hispanic population, which I
would hope we would take into consideration as we consider this
amendment.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. Anyone else have a comment on that?
Mr. Spiropoulos. It would be an incentive to
naturalization. I don't think it would be an internal incentive
that you believe because you do not have representation that
you needed to be naturalized. I think what you would have
happen is a huge political organization in those districts that
would lose out. They would organize people to become
naturalized in order to make sure that their votes were counted
and did not get diluted.
Mr. Gimpel. I would say some of the immigrant advocacy
groups that we have heard from today would likely turn their
attention to bolstering the political advocacy of their grass
roots constituencies. That would probably be a good thing. We
have heard for 15 or 20 years about how civic engagement in the
country has been in decline, with the 2004 election being an
odd exception, a blip on the screen. Wouldn't it be nice if we
saw a great stimulus to civic engagement as a result of
adoption of this amendment?
Ms. Perales. I believe that people naturalize for personal
reasons, mainly out of a love for this country and the desire
to take that final step to participate as a U.S. citizen. The
relatively remote effects on apportionment would not
necessarily be foremost in someone's mind as they begin the
process of naturalization.
Certainly the groups that are committed to the Latino
community strive today to increase naturalization as much as
possible. I am not sure that such a change as the one proposed
today would provide any greater resources toward that effort
than are already going to that effort.
Mr. Prewitt. May I add a footnote to Congressman Miller's
question?
Mrs. Miller. Go ahead.
Mr. Prewitt. I did meet with leaders of the Catholic Church
in preparation for the census 2000 and also MALDEF leaders. The
question I put is why do you care so much about whether we
count the noncitizens, and their explicit answer was we see
that as a step toward naturalization because it makes them more
comfortable dealing with the Federal Government and that is a
very important step in the evolution of our constituency. So
the Catholic Church, which for years had a standoff
relationship to the census for fear it would be tainted with
sort of government surveillance, and so forth, changed its mind
in 2000 exactly on the argument you are making. I actually do
believe this amendment would set that back rather than move it
forward.
Mrs. Miller. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to ask any more
questions. I appreciate your time. When I had an opportunity to
testify I think I laid out my reasoning for this resolution
very clearly at that point and I know others may have some
questions here but I do think that this again is an issue of
basic fairness.
I really think, although there have been no polls that I am
aware of, if you took a poll in our Nation right now about
whether or not people agree that illegal immigrants should have
the same representation in the U.S. Congress as American
citizens, it would be about 90-10 in favor of this resolution.
I honestly believe that. Again, I believe in the goodness of
the American people and their ability to ferret out in very
simplistic terms what is the appropriate course of action to
strengthen our Nation and continue our course.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Turner. I recognize Linda Sanchez from California.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, and I want to thank Chairman Turner
for allowing me to join the Federalism and Census Subcommittee
on today's hearing. I would also ask unanimous consent to
submit some opening statement for the record and----
Mr. Turner. Also make any comments.
Ms. Sanchez. If that is granted, I would like to ask
questions.
Mr. Turner. Please.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Linda T. Sanchez follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.087
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Ms. Perales, it seems to me that Latinos will be the ethnic
group most harmed by House Joint Resolution 53. In your
analysis of the resolution and its impact on apportionment do
you agree that Latinos would be the most harmed if this
language was added to the Constitution?
Ms. Perales. Yes, I do agree.
Ms. Sanchez. What other groups might be harmed as well?
Ms. Perales. Anglos or white Americans who happen to live
in and among the Latino community; for example, in my State of
Texas an Anglo person who lives in San Antonio or actually,
frankly, because apportionment is done on a State by State,
anybody who lives in Dallas or Waco or El Paso or Austin is
also going to be disproportionately and negatively affected by
this shift of representation.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. Now I know one of the hot topics
currently in Congress is immigration reform, and part of the
inflammatory language that we hear from anti-immigrant groups
is about illegal immigrants and their harmful impact on
communities, and I think some of that rhetoric has influenced
the debate about congressional apportionment. That's my
personal opinion.
Ms. Perales, will you please clarify for the record the
distinction between illegal immigrants and legal permanent
residents as these groups pertain to the joint resolution and
to congressional apportionment.
Ms. Perales. Well, certainly as worded the joint resolution
says nothing about undocumented immigrants and in fact does not
apply just to undocumented immigrants, so there is no
connection at all between the proposal and what is referred to
as illegal immigration.
As has been pointed out earlier, there are over 18 million
noncitizens living in the United States, the majority of whom
are lawful residents, either legal permanent residents or other
types of lawful residents. Because the proposal ignores or
excludes from apportionment all noncitizens, it is grossly
overbroad and strikes at many people living lawfully in the
United States today.
Ms. Sanchez. I am going to sort of hone in on that issue of
legal permanent residents. Somebody on this panel said that
this hearing was about protecting all American citizens and
that it was an issue of basic fairness. Ms. Perales, are you
aware that there are many legal permanent residents that serve
in the U.S. Military?
Ms. Perales. Yes, I am. They are in uniform and risking
their lives every day for this Nation.
Ms. Sanchez. Some are currently deployed in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Are you aware of that?
Ms. Perales. Yes.
Ms. Sanchez. So if we are talking about protecting American
citizens would you or would you not say it's a fair statement
that there are legal permanent residents who protect all
American citizens?
Ms. Perales. There are many.
Ms. Sanchez. Would you say in your opinion would it be
basic fairness to disallow a veteran who may be a legal
permanent resident but not yet have taken the oath of
citizenship, deny them being counted for purposes of
apportionment? Would that sound like basic fairness to you?
Ms. Perales. It would be very unfair.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Also, Mr. Gimpel stated earlier in his testimony that
districts potentially with more citizens get less services from
their Member of Congress. Would you agree with that statement?
Ms. Perales. No, I would not. No, I would not at all.
Whether you are a noncitizen or citizen, you walk down the
streets, you turn the lights on in your house, you have many
needs and you do approach your Representative in Congress for
services.
Ms. Sanchez. And I just want to hone in one last question
on the issue of children. Children under 18 are not of age to
vote and they receive services from their Federal
Representatives, is that not correct?
Ms. Perales. Absolutely.
Ms. Sanchez. I'm interested in knowing if you could just
sum up. I'll end my questioning with the answer to this one
last question. Earlier in the hearing the question was put to
all of the panelists that the counting of noncitizens for
apportionment dilutes the vote of citizens, and you disagreed
with that and I would just like to give you an opportunity
please to explain why you disagree with that.
Ms. Perales. Thank you for the opportunity. Voting and the
exercise of the franchise is limited to citizens. And if you
look at the 14th amendment you can see it right there. It talks
about citizens and it talks about the franchise and it talks
about people and all persons, which is a much larger group than
citizens. Noncitizens don't have a vote, noncitizens don't
exercise the franchise in any way, and thus they cannot dilute
the vote of those who are voting. It's not analytically
possible. And it creates great confusion to mash together the
concepts of voting and representation.
Representation flows to all people under the Constitution.
Elected officials will certainly appreciate the fact that they
represent the same number of people across a district within a
State. That is a very different concept than who votes and who
chooses to vote in any particular election.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Ms. Perales. I think you have done
an excellent job of educating on that, and I yield back.
Mrs. Maloney. Could I add one question to her? I know that
in New York and I have read that in court cases in other States
the courts have upheld the responsibility of government to
provide services to all people; education and health care.
Could you elaborate on that?
Ms. Perales. Well, the courts have interpreted the 14th
amendment's reference to persons; for example, in the equal
protection clause, as truly persons, as all human beings, not
to just citizens. So for example since we all have the right to
equal protection of the laws, that means that whether or not
you are a citizen or even whether or not you are a documented
or undocumented immigrant, you are entitled to the equal
protection of the laws. And the 14th amendment similarly
provides for apportionment based on all persons.
One has to read the 14th amendment to be consistent within
itself in that all persons means exactly that, all persons.
Undocumented immigrants are of course eligible for very few if
any kind of government services, although there is widespread
misinformation on that point.
So I think the most important thing to understand is that
the 14th amendment guarantees them protections with respect to
liberties and freedoms as well as protection of the laws flows
to all persons.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you very much.
Mr. Turner. Thank you. Ms. Sanchez, I appreciate your
return to the issue of the dilution of the vote of citizens
because actually for my followup questions, Ms. Perales, I need
to return to your testimony. I have been discussing with staff
and there is a lack of agreement on some of the content of your
testimony and I want to clear that up.
We were talking about the mathematical impact of counting
noncitizens for purposes of apportionment and I'd asked you the
question as to whether or not the counting of noncitizens for
purposes of apportionment diluted the votes of citizens, and
you answered no, an answer which I agree and I believe is
mathematically correct.
The subsequent question and clarification was a followup
one that the counting of noncitizens for the purposes of
apportionment deletes--let me try that again. Tongue-tied
here--that the counting of noncitizens for purposes of
apportionment dilutes the representative vote of citizens in
Congress, and my recollection is that you had answered in the
affirmative, which is in agreement with the other seven
panelists.
Ms. Perales. No, that is not correct. I'm not sure how you
modify the word ``vote'' with the word ``representative.'' It
does not have a meaning to me.
Mr. Turner. Let's discuss that for a moment. The question
of whether or not it dilutes the votes of citizens, since only
citizens are allowed to vote, noncitizens not appearing in the
ballot box to vote, the pool of those counted are only
citizens. When noncitizens are counted for the purposes of
apportionment, the pool gets larger, and then as
Representatives, which are a fixed number of Representatives,
are then allocated across the sea of the individuals that are
counted, both citizens and noncitizens, the impact vote on the
representative vote of citizens, those in Congress, is
diminished.
If you count a smaller group, only citizens, then the
representative vote in Congress of citizens would increase.
That is a mathematical equation of which all other seven
members of the panels two and three agreed, and my recollection
was that you had agreed in the affirmative with that.
Ms. Perales. No, I do not agree the vote is diluted in any
way.
Mr. Turner. Would you please explain to me mathematically
how by counting a larger group versus a smaller group dilution
does not occur.
Ms. Perales. Because apportionment is done based on total
population. Representatives are distributed across the sea of
people, as you put it, equally, meaning there are roughly equal
numbers of people in every congressional district. There are
different proportions of citizens and noncitizens in each
congressional district. Does total population-based
apportionment mean that congressional districts are comprised
of different numbers of citizens? Yes, of course,
mathematically it does.
Mr. Turner. So then you would have to agree that those
citizens that live in a congressional district that has a
higher percentage of citizens have a diluted representative
vote in Congress versus a congressional district that has a
less percentage of citizens when viewing it through the eyes of
citizen representation only?
Ms. Perales. No.
Mr. Turner. How can that be?
Ms. Perales. Because not everybody votes.
Mr. Turner. It's representation of vote issue. If I have
more citizens that live in my district versus Candice Miller
having less citizens, then when I sit in this chair, go to the
House floor and vote, my vote, which is one, and her vote,
which is one, has behind it more citizens, and she would have
less citizens. So her citizens are diluted with respect to
versus--excuse me, mine are diluted than her citizens. My
citizens having only one, her citizens being less, having only
one.
Ms. Perales. I cannot agree that the citizens are diluted.
What it does mean, and I will agree with you, is that
congressional districts might have more citizens in them and
less citizens, more children in them and less children, more
felons in them and less felons in them, but I do not agree that
this has any substantial impacts on the weight of their vote,
which is what vote dilution is.
Mr. Turner. We're just going to have to disagree because
the logical conclusion of your first statements to me seem to
conclude that dilution, but I certainly understand. Do we have
any other?
Mr. Prewitt. I do have to change my answer to that question
because you actually changed the terms of it in your response.
Mr. Turner. Your answer will stand to my original question
you received. If you want to say how you now want to
distinguish, but your original answer stands.
Mr. Prewitt. Representation and voting are simply
different. There's no dilution of representation. I heard in
this reframing of the question you're focused on
representation, not voting.
Mr. Turner. Their representation is their vote in Congress,
which is the question that I asked you. To that you answered
yes.
Mr. Prewitt. You cannot dilute representation insofar as
representation is distributed across the entire population
because that is the nature of the system. There is no concept
by which you could dilute representation.
Mr. Turner. By counting noncitizens there are congressional
districts that have less citizens in them. You agreed with
that?
Mr. Prewitt. Yes, yes.
Mr. Turner. Therefore, their vote in Congress as citizens
is greater than a district that has more citizens?
Mr. Prewitt. But not the representation.
Mr. Turner. The vote is representation, sir.
Ms. Perales. That's the problem of the way you framed the
question. You have turned representation into the issue of
voting.
Mr. Turner. I will leave it with you of their votes in
Congress, which was your answer then in the affirmative.
Ms. Perales, as a result of that discussion do you have any
change to your answer?
Ms. Perales. No. Only to point out that the framers
recognized the distinction between representation and the vote
within the 14th amendment when they created it.
Mr. Turner. Vote in the ballot box versus vote in Congress.
I would agree with you. Any closing comments or additional
questions for any Members?
Ms. Sanchez. One quick followup question. If you accept the
chairman's discussion that we just had about greater number of
citizens, meaning less representation, I am using his
terminology but that's the way he phrased it, would then it
seem, Mr. Prewitt and Ms. Perales, an issue of basic fairness
that somebody who was elected with a lower percentage of the
total citizens of their district who voted, that they should
get the same representation in terms of vote in the Congress as
another Member who had a higher percentage of citizens who
voted in their district?
Mr. Prewitt. That's exactly the issue of conflating voting
with representation. The system of political representation
that our founders created did not rest upon voter turnout, it
did not rest upon distinctions of citizenship, it simply rested
on no distinctions other than number of people. We presume in
our system of political representation that you as an elected
Representative of your district have a responsibility for all
of the people in that district. That's what we presume. And so
whether they vote--if only one person votes and it's you and
you elect yourself, you still have a responsibility to
represent another 649 or 73,000 people.
Ms. Perales. I have nothing to add to that answer.
Ms. Sanchez. Fabulous. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Turner. Any other questions or comments? If not, before
I adjourn I would like to thank all of our members of the
panel, our distinguished witnesses that have participated
today. I appreciate your willingness to share your knowledge
and thoughts with us and I would also like to thank my
colleagues for their participation today. House Joint
Resolution 53 is a very interesting proposal that gives food
for thought. I would like to give special thanks to
Congresswoman Candice Miller for her time and her testimony
today.
In the event that there may be additional questions that we
did not have time for today, the record shall remain open for 2
weeks for submitting questions and answers. Thank you all. We
stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6074.094