In a brief filed yesterday in the case of Lepak v. City of Irving, the United States Department of Justice argues that non-citizens should count when drawing districts for state offices.  This has the effect of diluting citizen representation.  A couple of points:

1. Justice did not need to file an amicus in this case.  This was a deliberate decision to take a position that would result in the dilution of citizen voters.  They could have stayed on the sidelines.

2. The effect of the position would be to allow non-citizens to dilute the voting strength of citizens.  For example, in a legislative district with a heavy illegal population (which would be counted for redistricting purposes) citizens in there would receive more representation than citizens in another district free from illegal aliens.  For example, if each district must be 100,000 people, regardless of citizenship, a district with only 60,000 citizens would have the same number of legislators (1) as the district with 100,000 legal U.S. citizens under the DOJ’s argument.  (Under one-man-one-vote rules the districts must be the same number of people).  How you define “people” is at the center of this dispute.

The central question is: should illegals be considered (and non-US citizens with green cards) when drawing districts.  The position of the DOJ would dilute the voting strength of law abiding U.S. Citizens by counting illegal aliens.  The DOJ rightly points out that courts have usually looked at total population.  The Constitution requires it for Congress, but is silent as to state offices.  The Irving case will decide whether non-citizens should count in picking legislative districts.  This case is designed to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, so don’t get to focused on what happens at the trial court. 

UPDATE: A meaty discussion of this case was published some months ago here.