Its a state issue. Its horrible and repugnant to the theory of democracy but its also Texas.
Texas is facing a demographic tsunami. 1/3 of the congressional delegation from Texas is Democratic. It won’t be long before its majority Democratic. This is the beginning of the end for Republicans in Texas. This is only a delaying tactic, eventually all those immigrants will have children that are citizens and they will remember how Republicans treated them.
Representation is a pointless mission, anyway. You need to abandon this democracy nonsense and get yourselves a Bourbon or a Habsburg. Maybe a Romanov.
OK, I’m morally obligated to make that point, get it out of the way.
That said, if you really care about equal representation, I think you’re going to have to go to something more self-selecting, like an open-list proportional system. Districts don’t even have a credible illusion of equality under the law, they’re just a way to divide up areas of pretend-accountability for members of the ruling class.
On this issue, I would probably prefer if it represented the number of residents whose residence there is meaningful.
If prisoners can vote, then they count, because their votes are being counted. But if they can’t vote, then they’re just being used to inflate the votes of free residents of the district with the prison–and they can’t even leave.
Resident aliens, however, should count, even if they’re undocumented, so long as they choose to live in a place. They’re part of the population, and free, just not naturalized yet.
I’m not sure about children.
On this issue, I would probably prefer if it represented the number of residents whose residence there is meaningful.
If prisoners can vote, then they count, because their votes are being counted. But if they can’t vote, then they’re just being used to inflate the votes of free residents of the district with the prison–and they can’t even leave.
Resident aliens, however, should count, even if they’re undocumented, so long as they choose to live in a place. They’re part of the population, and free, just not naturalized yet.
I’m not sure about children.
It’s interesting how any of these systems can be “gamed.” A powerful lobby can keep part of the populace non-voting by finding ways to convict them of felonies. (The drug war is a brilliant form of this, as was chain-gang culture.)
If you include non-voters from the count for districting, then a powerful part of the electorate can inflate its power by keeping lots of slaves/prisoners/illegals around. And of course you can inflate the numbers by having lots of children.
If you exclude non-voters, then whole districts can be diminished in voting power for having too many residents who can’t vote for whatever reason.
While the US has the world’s highest incarceration rate, I don’t think we have any district remotely like that. Or do we?
All these considerations have political implications. I can’t find the link, but I read somewhere that each additional child a married couple has increases their chances of going GOP.
A possible problem with this thread is that some are thinking that voting should fairly allocate power. But when it comes to who to count for representation, there is no principle, I can see, to decide what is fair.
Personally, I don’t think the idea of voting is to fairly allocate power.
In the opinion of almost all political leaders, and other strongly partisan voters, the idea of voting is to push into leadership positions people who think like them.
In my opinion, the idea of voting is to limit the power of leaders by rotation in office. A one party state, where my party is in control, would be terrible. However, if people who think like me get elected just a little more often, that’s OK 
Not to that ludicrous extreme, but I’m poking around on Google to try to find some districts that move in that direction. There are a lot of rural prisons out there.
Well, it’s not exactly like that, but it’s the first one I looked up:
West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Now, Angola seems to be one of the largest prisons in the country, at 5,000 prisoners. You’re probably not going to get much worse than 5,000 prisoners and 10,000 non-prisoners in a district.
This has always been my bugaboo. It’s one of the few politcal things by dad and I agree on: that congressional districts should be apportioned by the number of US citizens and not by total population.
Now dad it’s about ‘those damned foreigners’ (he’s married to a woman with French citizenship). For me it’s about fairness.
RT is correct that getting accurate info is difficult now, but it wouldn’t always be. Just as a first sort using info available from My Congressional District and using Florida as a number:
Florida District 2 (in the panhandle) has 710,751 people. Of those 34,992 are foreign born.
Florida District 26 (south tip in the 'glades) has 741,247 people. Of those 354,232 are foreign born.
Presumably, a large chunk of the foreign born have become US citizens. Say that holds true across districts (which I’m only using for illustration subject to better data) and 50% of those living in the US but are foreign born become citizens. That means the total number of people who are US citizens:
District 2: 693,255 citizens (Total pop - (foreignborn/2)
District 26: 564,131 citizens
In effect, a vote in District 26 counts 18.62% more than a vote in District 2. (District 2 citizens - district 26 citizens)/district 2 citizens
That seems excessive to me and worth making a fuss about. Would that be challengable under an equal representation argument? Presuming each district contains roughly the same number of people - a fact I’d posit subject to small state rules - I don’t think it would be hard to find places where 98%+ are citizens and others when 60% are citizens.
Remember, this issue is about state senate districts (and possibly state representative districts), and NOT congressional districts. Changing the enumeration for those would have clear constitutional problems, as has been pointed out.
Well, it was a hypothetical to prove the point that in some situations counting by total number of people could lead to an evidently unfair outcome. And here’s a city council voting district that was composed of over 95% prisoners. Admittedly that got fixed, but it shows that this is not implausible.
Court affirms ‘One-Person, One-Vote’ Standard
So representation will remain based on population, not eligible voters or citizens.
I haven’t dug into the side opinions by CT and SA.
Are those non-citizens not paying taxes? Then I would agree with you. But you know they are and IMNSHO they should be represented even if they don’t vote.
One positive effect of counting only people who actually vote in apportionment counting is that all these laws whose only purpose is to prevent voting would suddenly disappear. A negative effect would be that states would suddenly be encouraging illegal voting (either by gravestones or by immigrants).
<nitpick>
The case just decided asked the court to rule the present system as unconstitutional. They did not face whether other systems might be constitutional for drawing state legislative districts.
So a state could, in theory, make changes. Assuming those changes resulted in a lawsuit then perhaps the high court would have to answer if an alternate system might also be constitutional.
</nitpick>
In reality, states are unlikely to make a change. Districting based upon total population has been deemed constitutional. Leaving that system would be abandoning a safe harbor.
Right, seems the people challenging the districting, rather than making a case for apportionment by number of eligible voters and rounding up the votes to do that were seeking to preemptively disqualify the apportionment by total population. It is still feasible to seek to change the system if they can get the votes for it, but now *they *would have to justify doing it and defend that when challenged.
Nitpicks are why I post here, thanks.
So it looks like multiple counting methods may be OK constitutionally; the current system in TX is.
Whether one is* better* somehow is a separate question