The Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate has rejected a Republican-backed proposal that sought to exclude non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, from being counted in the U.S. Census, a move that would have reshaped the political representation map across the country.
The proposal, introduced by Senator Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), came as an amendment to a $460 billion government spending package currently under debate. The measure called for the U.S. Census Bureau to include a mandatory citizenship question in future census forms and to ensure that only U.S. citizens are counted when determining congressional apportionment and Electoral College votes.
The amendment ultimately failed in the Senate by a vote of 51–45, with all Democrats and Independents voting against it or being absent. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska also voted with Democrats to reject the measure. All other Republicans supported the proposal or were not present for the vote.
What the Proposal Would Have Changed
If approved, Hagerty’s amendment would have required the Census Bureau to identify and separate citizens from non-citizens when calculating population totals used to allocate seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and to determine each state’s number of Electoral College votes.
The plan also sought to exclude individuals residing in the country without legal status, as well as foreign nationals on temporary visas and green card holders, from those counts.
Supporters of the proposal argued that including non-citizens in apportionment calculations unfairly alters the distribution of political power between states, particularly benefiting states with higher immigrant populations such as California, New York, and Texas.
Senator Hagerty said the purpose of his proposal was to restore what he called “fair and accurate representation” for American citizens.
“Every seat in Congress should represent the votes of American citizens — not the presence of illegal immigrants who are not part of our political system,” Hagerty said on the Senate floor. “By continuing to count non-citizens, we are rewarding states that refuse to enforce immigration laws and diminishing the voice of law-abiding Americans elsewhere.”
Background: A Longstanding Political Dispute
The debate over who should be counted in the U.S. Census has been one of the most politically charged issues in recent years. Under current federal law, the Census Bureau counts every person living in the United States, regardless of immigration status, for the purpose of congressional apportionment.
This approach has been upheld by multiple court rulings and reflects the Constitution’s mandate that congressional representation be based on “the whole number of persons in each state.”
However, the question of whether that definition should include non-citizens gained national attention during the Trump administration, which sought to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census. That proposal was ultimately blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that the administration had not provided adequate justification for the change.
Republicans, including Hagerty, have continued to argue that counting non-citizens — especially those residing in the country unlawfully — distorts political representation and incentivizes illegal immigration by granting additional seats in Congress to states with larger immigrant populations.
Democrats, on the other hand, maintain that the Constitution requires counting everyone, and they argue that excluding non-citizens would result in underrepresentation of diverse communities, particularly in urban areas.
Supporters Warn of “Distorted Representation”
The proposal received vocal support from several conservative think tanks and immigration policy advocates, who argued that current census practices dilute the voting power of U.S. citizens.
In a joint essay, Lora Ries, Director of the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation, and R.J. Hauman, President of the National Immigration Center for Enforcement, called the issue a matter of democratic fairness.
“Barring the Census from including non-citizens in apportionment is critical to ensuring that American citizens — the only population who can and should vote in U.S. elections — are the ones picking America’s leaders,” they wrote.
“Allowing illegal immigrants to be counted is distorting representation in Congress and influencing how many electoral votes certain states receive in presidential elections.”
They warned that the current system gives political advantages to states that have declined to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, effectively rewarding noncompliance.
Opposition From Democrats and Civil Rights Advocates
Democrats and immigration advocacy groups strongly opposed Hagerty’s amendment, calling it an attempt to politicize the census and intimidate immigrant communities.
They argued that requiring a citizenship question or excluding non-citizens from apportionment would discourage participation in the census, leading to incomplete and inaccurate population data that would harm local governments’ ability to receive fair federal funding.
Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), whose state has one of the largest immigrant populations in the country, said the measure was both unconstitutional and divisive.
“The Census is about counting everyone who lives in our communities, as the Constitution requires,” Padilla said. “Efforts like this are nothing more than a political strategy to erase millions of people from representation and to shift power away from diverse states like California.”
Other Democrats emphasized that the Constitution does not limit apportionment counts to citizens alone, pointing to decades of census practice dating back to the nation’s founding.
Civil rights organizations also criticized the proposal, warning that it would “further marginalize” immigrant communities and reduce their access to federal resources tied to census data, including healthcare, education, and infrastructure funding.
Public Reaction and Broader Implications
The Senate vote drew strong reactions online. Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk commented on the outcome on his platform X (formerly Twitter), writing that “the current system is fundamentally unfair to citizens” and suggesting that apportionment based on total population “distorts democracy.”
The failed amendment reignited debate over how population data should be used to determine political representation and federal resource allocation.
If Hagerty’s proposal had passed, it could have set up a major legal battle over the interpretation of the Constitution’s Apportionment Clause, likely prompting judicial review from the Supreme Court.
For now, the decision means that the Census Bureau will continue counting all residents, regardless of immigration status, for the purposes of congressional and Electoral College representation — a practice that has remained consistent for more than two centuries.
Looking Ahead
Although the amendment failed, Hagerty signaled that he plans to reintroduce similar legislation in the future, arguing that the issue of fair representation “is far from settled.”
“This is not the end of the conversation,” he said after the vote. “The American people deserve a census that reflects citizens, not illegal residents. I will continue working to make that a reality.”
Meanwhile, Democrats reaffirmed their commitment to preserving the current census framework, calling it essential to ensuring that “every person in America counts.”
The clash highlights one of the most enduring questions in American democracy — who gets to count when determining the balance of political power in Washington.