Published September 30, 2026 at 7:26 AM ET · Updated September 30, 2026 at 4:08 PM ET
Poll finds even Democrats oppose foreigners tilting the census
2 independent outlets are covering this story, first reported here by The Federalist. Verification: Corroborated (how we verify). Every headline links to the original reporting.
A poll found that even Democrats oppose foreign citizens affecting outcomes through the census. The Federalist tied the results to Chief Justice John Roberts letting foreign citizens tilt the makeup of the House of Representatives.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 1 d ago, when The Federalist reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets. The most recent report came 17 hr ago from RealClearPolitics.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Trump v. New York dismissed the challenge to excluding unlawfully present noncitizens from the apportionment base as premature and expressed no view on the merits, so the Court never approved counting them. Evenwel v. Abbott held that total population may be the districting base because representatives serve all residents. Whether noncitizens can be excluded remains unsettled and is in litigation now.
Trump v. New York 592 U.S. 125 (2020)
Vote: Per curiam; 6-3 (vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing… · Opinion: Per curiam (unsigned)
The challenge to the President's July 21, 2020 memorandum — which directed the Secretary of Commerce to provide apportionment information that would allow the President to try to exclude unlawfully present noncitizens from the base — was premature. The plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and the case was not ripe: it was not clear the policy would be carried out, how many people it would affect, or whether it would change any state's apportionment. The Court expressed no view on the merits (whether noncitizens may lawfully be excluded from the apportionment base).
Evenwel v. Abbott 578 U.S. 54 (2016)
Vote: 8-0 (unanimous in the judgment; the seat left by Justice Scalia's death in Feb. 2016 was… · Opinion: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
A state may draw its legislative districts to equalize TOTAL population, rather than voter-eligible or registered-voter population, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause and the 'one person, one vote' principle. Constitutional history, precedent, and long practice all support apportionment by total population; representatives serve all residents, not only eligible voters. The Court expressly declined to decide whether a state MAY instead use voter-eligible population — it held only that total population is permissible.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
