| Donald Trump is quietly reigniting a fight over the Census that could have major implications for power and policy — including the reapportionment of House seats and billions in federal funding. Trump pushed hard to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census — which critics argued would discourage people from participating, even if they are in the country legally — with the ultimate goal of excluding immigrants in the country illegally from the count for apportionment. Historically, that’s not how it's been done; the 14th Amendment requires House seats be apportioned by “counting the whole number of persons in each State,” and non-citizens have never been excluded from apportionment totals. Adding the question was litigated heavily, with the Supreme Court ultimately ruling that the Trump administration could not do so, largely on procedural grounds. Had Trump won this fight it would have been hugely consequential. The census is a massive, constitutionally-mandated undertaking that has a dramatic effect on American politics — resetting the number of House seats (and therefore the number of Electoral College votes) each state gets and directing billions of federal dollars. The Trump administration pivoted to issuing an executive order demanding that government agencies produce “administrative records” to determine the number of non-citizens, and a memorandum “on excluding illegal aliens” from apportionment, which drew yet another lawsuit. (The Supreme Court punted on this one.) This was all mostly moot, because the pandemic significantly delayed the release of census data until well into Joe Biden’s term, and he revoked both of those decisions on his first day in office, issuing his own executive order saying apportionment numbers should be produced “without regard to immigration status,” in line with historical practice. But now Trump is back — and on his first day this term, Trump revoked Biden’s apportionment order. The White House, the Census Bureau and the Commerce Department (which oversees the Bureau) did not respond to questions about Trump’s plan on the census and citizenship. But advocates who fought Trump’s first push on citizenship and apportionment fear he'll try again.“I expect that this second Trump administration will pursue that again, to the detriment, I believe, of having a decennial census that's able to be as complete and accurate as possible,” said Arturo Vargas, the chief executive officer for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and the chair of the 2030 Census Advisory Committee. The outcome of this fight can have major implications. A Pew Research report from before the release of the 2020 census data estimated that excluding unauthorized immigrants would cost Texas, Florida and California a House seat that each state otherwise would have if every person is counted. And outside of apportionment, some scientific organizations opposed pushes to add a citizenship question to the census because it could “undermine participation” and “ultimately diminish the quality and utility of decennial census data.” Trump's administration could still have long-term sway over how it is conducted in 2030 and beyond, even though he won’t be in office. Preparations for the census is a decade-long project. And federal law requires proposed census questions to be submitted to Congress two years before it is conducted, within Trump’s term. Other Republicans have also been pushing to exclude noncitizens. The GOP-controlled House passed a bill that would have done so last Congress. And in the waning days of the Biden administration, a quartet of Republican states attorneys general sued to exclude some non-citizens in apportionment. The states sought an order from the courts that any apportionment calculation that “does not use the best available methods to exclude illegal aliens and nonimmigrant aliens” is unconstitutional, and asked the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau to include questions about citizenship on the 2030 census. An early sign on how the Trump administration plans to proceed with the 2030 count will be their response to this lawsuit. Danedri Herbert, a spokesperson for Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, who is one of the leaders of the suit, said they are gearing up for a fight ahead of the 2030 count. “The case may take two years if it goes to the Supreme Court, and the relief will need to be in place before the 2030 Census begins,” Herbert said.
| 
