Should non-citizens count?
Sen. Nancy Jacobs, a Harford County Republican, just announced that she's seeking an AG's opinion on whether the state could stop counting non-citizens when it apportions legislative districts. She says that the 2000 census counted 283,604 non-citizens in the figures given to the state for carving up legislative (and, presumably, Congressional) districts. That amounts to about 6,000 people per Senate district, she says. "It effectively diluted the votes of all people by about 5.3% statewide and theoretically would vary based on districts with more non-citizens versus districts with less non-citizens," her news release says.
That last part is probably the more significant one. If non-citizens were spread equally around the state, it wouldn't make any difference if they were counted or not. But they aren't distributed equally, and the large concentrations of non-citizen immigrants in some places helps give them more political power than they would have if those people weren't counted. Notably, some areas of Prince George's and Montgomery counties, and probably portions of East Baltimore, get more representation than they would otherwise if the non-citizens weren't counted. Jacobs says:
“I am a strong believer in the Constitutional rights afforded to citizens and voting is one of our most sacred rights. Voting is a truly democratic principle that must be fairly administered so that each citizen’s vote is equally valued. The current practice of counting non-citizens for the purposes of drawing up voter districts disenfranchises all Maryland voters, potential voters, and Maryland citizens. I expect the Attorney General will opine in favor of equality among citizens and that the state will adopt such an opinion into their redistricting process.”
Her logic seems to be that counting people who can't vote to determine the power of those who can isn't fair. But there are other implications to that argument. Despite legal changes making it easier for ex-offenders to vote, there are still thousands of people, particularly in Baltimore, who are ineligible because they are on probation or parole. Should their districts get less representation? What about Western Maryland, where the population (and, hence, political power) is augmented by the presence of the state's major prisons? In any case, Jacobs' idea could be a hot topic of debate as we draw nearer to the time for redistricting.
Comments
I guess Senator Jacobs has forgotten that she represents the people in her district, not the voters in her district. Perhaps we should not count those under 18 either?
Posted by: Marc | January 22, 2009 6:00 PM
This is one area where I am a lot less liberal.
Senator Jacobs represents the citizens in her district. Illegal immigrants are still technically citizens of another country and are represented in whatever district they chose to leave. Americans can't just assume rights in another country, so I've never understood how states can issue driver licenses etc. If someone had terminal cancer, they couldn't just take a plane to Switzerland and demand coverage and treatment under their universal healthcare.
I think her argument doesn't really open the door for convicted felons though. I think this is a "citizen" issue, not an "eligibility" issue. The "eligibility" argument is a bit more interesting, but I don't have a problem with how it's setup for felons etc.
Posted by: James C | January 22, 2009 6:50 PM
I wonder, do legal residents who are not citizens count? Does she represent people who are here legally and permanently, and not citizens? Or, not yet citizens?
This is the argument of the anti-immigrant folks who claim that they are only opposed to "illegal immigrants" and always seem to forget that there are folks who are here with rights other than the right to vote.
Whenever jobs are lost and crime goes up, a certain part of society starts to blame people with accents. Whether it was Irish immigrants 100 years ago, Jewish and Italian Immigrants 80 years ago, or Latin American immigrants today.
Don't we have better things to do than look for scapegoats?
Posted by: Carl | January 23, 2009 1:45 AM
Reference Article 6 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights at
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/virginia.asp
...for a look at what one of the Founders thought. George Mason, the author, in June, 1776 was a mentor to Jefferson (Declaration of Independence), and Madison (influential in the Constitution) , and Mason himself was one of the most influential in determining that the Constiution included the first Ten Amendments (Bill of Rights).
"That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good."
Half a million once (and future?) Marylanders living in DC go largely unrepresented as well. What about them? They are a part of the same posterity for whom the Founders pledged their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor to secure Liberty. They deserve equal representation, and the equal opportunity to grant or withhold Consent to the way they are Governed.
Posted by: citizenw | January 23, 2009 12:55 PM
Thank goodness at least one person in Annapolis is looking into this unconstitutional atrocity. Why was Maryland EVER counting non-citizens for apportionment? That is shameless and it makes all of our votes worth less.
Posted by: Lawerence | January 23, 2009 8:24 PM
Citizenw provides important and interesting information while Lawrence goes directly to the heart of the matter defined by Mr. Mason.
That core question is the vote, or the right of suffrage. Our foundation is one man is entitled to one vote. Apportionment is to be as equal as possible so that each Representative has a vote equal to their peers. If a standard district is made up of 200,000 people entitled to and exercising citizenship, but two particular adjacent districts are made up of 200,000 persons only one-half of whom are citizens, then the districts are over represented and getting twice the influence of a district designed with citizens.
I do not want my my vote diluted by counting improper persons, or my party diluted due to the same circumstance. One who favors counting the improper persons for representation is more interested in forcing their will on others than on republican government.
Posted by: Bruce Robinson | January 29, 2009 2:43 PM
Montgomery County had 132,000 non-citizens by the 2000 Census which accounted for another state senate seat (roughly 112,000). Something must be done? Is there any progress on this?
Posted by: Fairness | May 2, 2009 6:37 PM