GOP Push for Citizen-Only Redistricting Faces Legal Hurdles

The battle over how states draw legislative districts is entering a new phase, one that could shift political influence away from urban areas and toward more rural regions. At the heart of this debate is a question of who gets counted: total population, or only eligible voters? While the Supreme Court has previously affirmed that districts can be drawn based on total population, a renewed push by Republican officials to utilize only citizen voting-age population is gaining momentum, potentially reshaping the political landscape.

For decades, the standard practice has been to base redistricting on the total number of residents within a given area. However, some Republican officials are now advocating for a narrower metric: the number of eligible voters. This approach, if implemented, could significantly alter the balance of power, particularly in states with diverse populations and varying rates of voter eligibility. Some proponents suggest this would mean excluding non-U.S. Citizens and even children from the population count used to draw district lines.

The Supreme Court’s Previous Ruling and Ongoing Debate

The legal groundwork for this debate dates back to 2016, when the Supreme Court ruled in Evenwel v. Abbott that states are permitted to draw legislative districts based on total population. The ruling, which was unanimous, affirmed that representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible to vote. However, the court stopped short of definitively ruling on the legality of using only adult citizens as the basis for redistricting, leaving the door open for future challenges.

Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion, acknowledged that the question of adult citizen-based redistricting was an “important and sensitive” one that the court might need to address if a concrete case arose. This sentiment has fueled the current efforts by Republican officials to explore this approach.

Missouri’s Challenge and the Potential Impact

Missouri is at the forefront of this movement, having filed a lawsuit against the federal government seeking to compel the Census Bureau to release data on citizenship status at the block level. This data would be crucial for states seeking to draw districts based on the number of adult citizens. The state’s legal complaint argues that including non-citizens and temporary visa holders in the census “hopelessly skews” legislative redistricting, violating the principle of “one person, one vote.”

Missouri voters approved new redistricting requirements in 2020 that some interpret as supporting a citizen-based approach. D. John Sauer, Missouri’s solicitor general, previously stated that the state’s constitution requires districts to be based on the number of “actual eligible voters.”

A 2021 study by researchers at Harvard Law School and the University of Michigan simulated redistricting plans in several states, including Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas. The study found that adult citizen-based redistricting would likely reduce the number of legislative districts where Black or Latino voters have an opportunity to elect their preferred candidate, potentially weakening voting rights protections.

The Role of Citizenship Data and the Trump Administration

The push for citizen-based redistricting is closely linked to broader efforts to gather citizenship data through the census. The Trump administration’s failed attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census was a key part of this strategy. While that effort was blocked by the Supreme Court in 2019, a report commissioned during that time by Republican redistricting strategist Thomas Hofeller revealed a strategy to leverage citizenship data to gain a partisan advantage.

Hofeller’s report suggested that redrawing districts based on adult citizens would be beneficial to Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites. However, more recent research suggests that the partisan effects may be less pronounced than initially anticipated, with the most significant impact likely being a reduction in minority representation.

Current Developments and Legal Challenges

President Trump recently revoked a Biden-era executive order that had rescinded his 2019 order on citizenship data from the census, signaling a renewed commitment to gathering this information. The administration has also proposed a citizenship question for the 2030 census field test and is challenging the Census Bureau’s current practices in court.

Organizations like the NAACP and its Missouri chapter are seeking to intervene in Missouri’s lawsuit, arguing that citizen-based redistricting would dilute the voting power of Black residents in urban areas. They contend that the state’s efforts are discriminatory and violate the principles of equal representation.

The legal battles surrounding this issue are likely to continue, with the outcome potentially having far-reaching consequences for the future of redistricting and political representation in the United States. The NAACP argues that excluding certain categories of immigrants would skew results against urban areas and favor more rural regions.

As this legal and political landscape evolves, it’s crucial to monitor developments closely and understand the potential implications for voting rights and fair representation. The process of how districts are drawn has a direct impact on who has a voice in our government, and ensuring that all residents are counted and represented fairly is essential for a healthy democracy.