100percentfedup.com
HUGE: New Plan Emerges To Radically Strip Democrats of House Seats and Electoral College Votes!
A new plan is quickly emerging that could strip Democrats of a significant number of House seats AND Electoral College votes!
And as with everything in the Trump 2.0 Administration, things are moving very fast.
It all started with Marjorie Taylor Greene floating out the idea to eliminate the “Census Fraud” put into place by the Biden Regime and order a brand new census to be put into place immediately that would only count actual U.S. Citizens!
Not residents…
Not illegals…
Not green card holders…
But only U.S. Citizens, which is the only truly legal way to do it.
You can see her lay out the plan here:
The American people are underrepresented thanks to Biden’s census fraud.
My bill:
Orders a new census of U.S. citizens only.
Directs states to redraw House maps accordingly.
Ends non-citizen voting in federal elections.
President Trump backs it. Now let’s pass it. pic.twitter.com/8Od3PpgAcA
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (@RepMTG) July 2, 2025
News almost immediately spread to President Trump who said he was aware of the plan and supports it 100%.
Watch here:
JUST IN — President Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis join the call for a NEW, more accurate Census. 2020 was a completely bastardized and flawed process. Only American citizens should be counted. Republicans will gain at least 10 seats, probably more.
Let’s go!!! https://t.co/Kwhl3uOSNf pic.twitter.com/cmOfp87Z2E
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) July 1, 2025
Elon actually exposed this in 2024 in that trainwreck interview that ended Don Lemon’s new podcasting career:
JUST IN: President Trump supports an upcoming bill that would block illegal immigrants from counting in the U.S. Census.
If passed, the move would likely take away House seats from Democrats.
Back in 2024 during an interview with Don Lemon, Elon Musk explained the Democrat… pic.twitter.com/BI923rGGgo
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 30, 2025
The best news?
Stephen Miller is not only aware of it, but truth be told I think he’s probably the brainchild of it in the first place.
And details are now emerging that Miller has already been running with it:
BREAKING: The White House is currently working on ways to EXCLUDE illegal aliens from the US census, per Stephen Miller
This would take away SEVERAL House seats from places like California, as seats are determined by population
GET IT DONE! No illegals in the census! pic.twitter.com/3xlv9zwRbG
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 30, 2025
You can almost take it to the bank that when Stephen Miller sets his sights on something and locks in, it’s going to get done!
But now break down what exactly this means…
I went to ChatGPT and gave it detailed instructions to analyze what would happen in terms of House Seats and Electoral College votes if this were actually put into place immediately and all non-citizens were removed from the Census.
I told it to do “DeepResearch” and it actually took about 20-30 minutes as it chewed through all the data.
I’m going to give you those full reports down below, but I don’t want to hide the ball or bury the lede so first let me just give you the short answers…
House Seats: ChatGPT estimates that blue states are hit bad, and red states gain big, with a minimum of 3-5 house seats shifting Republican, but perhaps the more likely figure is 10-14 seats shifting Republican because that’s how many shifted Democrat when Biden recounted in 2020 and included all non-citizen illegal aliens.
Electoral College: In the Electoral College, ChatGPT estimates Red States pick up 6 Electoral College votes and Blue States lose 6 votes which is MASSIVE 12 vote swing from where things were at in 2024.
Now for the full analysis for anyone who wants to go DEEP on this…
House Seats:
Impact of Excluding Non-Citizens on 2025 Congressional Apportionment
Introduction & Methodology
Under current law, congressional apportionment is based on total population, counting all residents (citizens and non-citizens) in each statefactcheck.org. The U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment specifies apportionment using the “whole number of persons in each State,” and the Supreme Court has affirmed that “persons” includes every resident regardless of citizenship or legal statusthirdway.orgthirdway.org. In practice, this means even non-citizens (including lawful permanent residents, visa holders, and undocumented immigrants) have always been counted for dividing House seats.
Scenario: Suppose that in 2025 the apportionment were recalculated using only U.S. citizens, excluding all non-citizens from state population counts. To estimate this impact, we use the latest available data on non-citizen populations by state (from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, ACS). The ACS 2015–2019 five-year estimates (weighted to 2020) report about 22.16 million non-citizens nationwide, ~6.8% of the U.S. resident populationthearp.org. Subtracting these non-citizens from each state’s 2020 census population gives a “citizens-only” population for apportionment. We then apply the standard Method of Equal Proportions (the same formula used in the 2020 census) to allocate 435 House seats among the 50 states based on citizen-only populations. Each state is guaranteed one seat, and the remaining seats are assigned by ranking states by priority values (a function of population) until all seats are distributedpewresearch.orgpewresearch.org. This analysis assumes no change in the total number of House seats (still 435), so any seat gained by one state means a seat lost by another (a zero-sum shift).
State-by-State Seat Redistribution
Using the citizen-only apportionment model, a significant shift in House seats would occur. States with large non-citizen populations would lose representation, while states with smaller non-citizen shares would gain. Table 1 below details the projected changes for each state that would lose or gain seats if only citizens were counted (states not listed would see no change in seat count). The “Current seats” reflect the actual House seats each state received after the 2020 census (based on total population), and “Adjusted seats” is the recalculated number if apportionment were based on citizens only. The net change column shows the seat loss (–) or gain (+) for each state, and the estimated partisan impact indicates which party would likely hold the lost or newly gained seat, based on the state’s political makeup and recent voting patterns in those districts.
Table 1. Projected House Seat Changes with Non-Citizens Excluded (Citizen-Only Apportionment)
State
Current House Seats (2020 apportionment)
Adjusted Seats (Citizens-Only)
Net Seat Change
Likely Partisan Impact (lost or gained seat)
California
52
48
–4
Loss of 4 seats (likely Democratic seats lost, given California’s delegation is overwhelmingly Democratic)cis.org.
New York
26
24
–2
Loss of 2 seats (likely Democratic seats lost; NY is Dem-leaning, though one loss could come from a GOP-held district).
New Jersey
12
11
–1
Loss of 1 seat (likely Democratic; NJ is blue and a Democratic seat would likely be eliminated).
Illinois
17
16
–1
Loss of 1 seat (potentially a Republican seat lost – Illinois’ Dem-controlled map would likely cut a GOP district).
Colorado
8
9
+1
Gain of 1 seat (expected Democratic advantage; Colorado’s population growth is around Denver and trends blue).
Florida
28
29
+1
Gain of 1 seat (likely Republican; Florida’s GOP legislature would likely draw a new GOP-leaning district).
Louisiana
6
7
+1
Gain of 1 seat (likely Republican; Louisiana is strongly red – though a new seat could raise pressure for a second minority/Dem district).
Missouri
8
9
+1
Gain of 1 seat (likely Republican; Missouri is heavily GOP, so new district would favor the GOP).
Montana
2
3
+1
Gain of 1 seat (likely Republican; Montana is a deep red state – a third seat would likely elect a Republican).
North Carolina
14
15
+1
Gain of 1 seat (likely Republican; GOP-controlled redistricting in NC would ensure a GOP-leaning new district).
Oregon
6
7
+1
Gain of 1 seat (likely Democratic; Oregon’s Democratic legislature would likely draw the new seat favorably for Democrats).
Texas
38
39
+1
Gain of 1 seat (likely Republican; Texas’ GOP legislature would design a new district favoring Republicans).
Sources: These projections are based on 2019 ACS-estimated citizen populations, projected to 2020. According to the American Redistricting Project’s analysis, California would lose four seats, New York would lose two, and New Jersey and Illinois one each, while Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas would each gain one under a citizens-only countthearp.org. The current seat counts are from the official 2020 census apportionment. Partisan impact assessments are inferred from each state’s recent voting patterns and control of redistricting. For example, California’s delegation is almost 80% Democratic, so most of the four eliminated districts would likely have been Democratic-held seats. In Illinois, where Democrats control map-drawing, an eliminated district would probably be one of the few Republican-held seats, as Illinois Democrats would seek to maintain their advantage. In contrast, new seats in Republican-dominated states (Texas, Florida, etc.) would be drawn to favor GOP candidates.
Major Shifts and Trends
The redistribution above reflects major shifts in political representation if non-citizens were excluded. Notably:
California’s dramatic loss of 4 seats underscores its large non-citizen population (over 5.3 million non-citizens in 2019 ACS data) and the heavy impact on immigrant-rich statesthearp.org. California would drop from 52 seats to 48 – a reduction of ~8% of its House delegation. Such a steep loss is unprecedented in modern times; it would diminish California’s influence in Congress and the Electoral College (costing it 4 electoral votes as well).
New York’s substantial loss of 2 seats (from 26 to 24) likewise reflects its high immigrant population (especially in NYC). This would be on top of the seat New York already lost in 2020. A loss of two more would shrink NY’s delegation to 24, its lowest since the 1820s. Both California and New York – traditionally Democratic strongholds – would see their political clout erode under citizen-only apportionment. New Jersey and Illinois (also states with large immigrant communities) each lose 1 seat, continuing a trend of population-share decline in the Northeast and Midwest.
Gains in mid-sized and smaller states: Several states with relatively fewer immigrants would pick up seats. Texasparadoxically gains +1 seat despite its large non-citizen population; this is because while Texas has many non-citizens, states like CA and NY have even higher shares, so Texas’ relative share of the citizen-only population actually grows enough to snag an additional seat. This would give Texas 39 seats, further closing the gap with California’s delegation. Florida gains an extra seat as well (going to 29); even though Florida has many non-citizens (e.g. in Miami), its booming citizen population still elevates it in rank once California and New York are knocked down. North Carolina, Colorado, Oregon – all states that gained 1 seat from the 2020 census – would each gain yet another seat with only citizens counted (each moving up one more notch in the apportionment list). Colorado would have 9 seats instead of 8, reflecting its growth and moderate immigrant share. Oregon would get 7 instead of 6. North Carolina would go from 14 to 15. Notably, Montana – which only just regained a 2nd seat in 2020 after decades of having one at-large district – would actually jump to 3 seats under this scenario, an unusual expansion for a rural state. This occurs because Montana has a very small non-citizen population, so its citizen population is relatively larger compared to states like New Jersey or Illinois in a citizen-only count. Similarly, Louisiana and Missouri (states that have not gained seats in many decades and in fact have lost seats over time) would each gain one seat, reversing long-running trends of stagnant or declining representation. Their low immigrant populations give them a boost in this redistribution.
These shifts highlight a clear pattern: states with higher shares of non-citizens (many of them traditionally “blue” states or urbanized states) lose out, and states with lower non-citizen shares (often “red” or less urban states) benefit. In total, eight seats would be reallocated away from four states (CA, NY, NJ, IL) and given to eight other states. This reflects a sizable re-balancing of political power among the states.
Partisan Impact Analysis
Politically, excluding non-citizens from apportionment would likely advantage Republicans overall – though not by as much as one might intuitively expect, and not enough on its own to radically change the partisan balance of the House. The reason is that while the state shifts are significant (from blue states to red states), the question of which party wins or loses each specific seat depends on district-level politics and redistricting choices:
Democratic-Leaning States Lose Seats: The states losing seats (California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois) are all Democratic-leaning at the state level. This means the pool of lost seats comes largely from areas that favor Democrats. For example, California’s four eliminated districts would likely be in areas currently represented mostly by Democrats, simply because Democrats hold roughly 80% of California’s seats. New York’s two lost seats would probably also both be Democratic-held (especially if the Democratic-controlled NY legislature were drawing the new map – they would not sacrifice their own safe seats if they can instead eliminate a Republican-held seat, but even after aggressive gerrymandering, at least one Democratic seat would likely be lost). New Jersey’s delegation is predominantly Democratic (currently 9D–3R), so a reduced map would likely pit two Democrats against each other, eliminating one Democratic seat. In total, one can estimate that out of the 8 seats lost by these four blue states, perhaps 5–6 were held by Democrats and a couple by Republicans. Illinois is a special case: Democrats there could use the loss as an opportunity to eliminate one of the few Republican districts (since Illinois’ legislature is Democrat-controlled). Thus Illinois’ lost seat might actually come at the expense of a Republican incumbent. Overall, though, the majority of the seats being eliminated are Democratic-held, reflecting the fact that immigrants bolster representation in Democratic areascis.orgcis.org.
Republican-Leaning States Gain Seats: Most of the states gaining seats are Republican-leaning (Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, Louisiana, Montana). These new districts would likely favor the GOP. In states where Republicans control redistricting (e.g. TX, FL, NC, MO, LA), mapmakers would almost certainly draw the new seat to elect a Republican if at all possible. For example, Florida’s legislature (and governor) is Republican; when Florida gained a 28th seat in 2022, the resulting map was drawn to heavily favor Republicans (yielding a 20R–8D delegation). A 29th seat in Florida would presumably be drawn in a GOP-friendly region, adding another Republican to Florida’s ranks. Texas, with unified GOP control, would likely carve out a new district in a conservative area or configure it to dilute Democratic voters, aiming to elect a Republican. North Carolina’s situation is similar – a new 15th seat would be drawn in the upcoming GOP gerrymander (NC’s legislature has already signaled plans to redraw maps) likely as a Republican-leaning district. Missouri and Montana are solidly red – any new seats there would almost certainly be won by Republicans. Two of the gaining states, however, lean Democratic: Colorado and Oregon. Colorado uses an independent commission for redistricting, but given recent trends (Colorado went 5D–3R in House seats in 2022), a new 9th district might be at least competitive if not Democratic-leaning (depending on where the population growth is concentrated). Oregon’s Democratic legislature would have control over drawing a 7th district – they would likely create a district favoring Democrats (much as Oregon’s 6th seat added in 2022 was drawn to be Democratic-leaning). Thus, out of the 8 new seats created, it’s plausible that 5–6 would lean Republican and 2–3 Democratic.
Combining these effects, the net impact on party seat counts would likely be a modest loss for Democrats and a modest gain for Republicans. A reasonable estimate is that Democrats would likely lose on the order of 3–5 House seats, net, under a citizens-only apportionment, shifting those seats to GOP control. For instance, one detailed analysis found that counting all immigrants (citizens or not) in 2020 tended to shift about 10–14 seats into Democratic-leaning states that they wouldn’t have if only citizens were countedcis.org. In our scenario, removing non-citizens would reverse some of that, effectively tilting a few seats back toward Republican states. Another study (focused only on undocumented immigrants) found virtually no partisan net benefit to Democrats from including that subsetfactcheck.orgfactcheck.org – meaning excluding just undocumented immigrants alone would have been roughly a wash in 2020. But when all non-citizens are excluded, the larger numbers concentrated in blue states like CA and NY mean a greater effect that likely doesbenefit Republicans slightly. In short, Democratic stronghold states lose several seats, while Republican states gain several – however, because Democrats can sometimes mitigate damage through redistricting (e.g. eliminating an opposition seat) and because a couple of gains are in blue states, the partisan change is not extreme. It would probably be enough to cost Democrats a few seats in the House, potentially making it harder for them to attain or hold a majority. For example, if these changes had been in effect for the current Congress, the slim GOP House majority (222–213 after 2022) might have been a bit larger – perhaps on the order of 225–210, making GOP control slightly more secure.
It’s worth noting that the partisan impact is ultimately limited by geography: non-citizens are heavily concentrated in a handful of states (and mostly in metro areas). These areas already vote overwhelmingly Democratic, so “extra” seats there don’t always equate to additional Democratic wins in Congress beyond what they would win in a smaller delegation. Conversely, many of the gaining states are already overwhelmingly Republican, so additional seats simply add more Republican members. The result is a net tilt, but not a dramatic overhaul of House control. Political analysts have observed that including non-citizens has thus far not drastically altered the partisan balance of Congressfactcheck.org, although it does shift representation toward certain states and communities. Excluding non-citizens would reverse that representational shift, to the detriment of diverse, immigrant-heavy regions and likely to the benefit of whiter, more rural regions (which tend to favor the GOP)houstonlawreview.org.
Political Implications
The implications of this shift would be far-reaching. Representation in Congress drives not only the number of House members but also each state’s influence in the Electoral College (electors = House seats + 2 senators). Under a citizens-only apportionment, large immigrant-rich states like California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois would see their electoral vote clout reduced, while states like Texas, Florida, and others would gain electoral votes. For example, California would lose four electoral votes for presidential elections, while Texas and Florida would gain one each, and so on, potentially affecting the balance of power in close presidential contests. (However, even a shift of a few electoral votes likely wouldn’t swing recent presidential outcomes by itselffactcheck.org, barring an exceptionally tight race, since recent victories have margins larger than the 3–4 vote swing this scenario might produce.)
More broadly, excluding non-citizens from apportionment would ignite intense political and legal battles. The change would disproportionately affect states and districts with large immigrant communities – which are often urban, ethnically diverse, and Democratic-leaning. These communities (e.g. Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Chicago’s immigrant neighborhoods) would face diminished representation even though they are home to millions of people, many of whom contribute to the economy and society but lack citizenship. This raises issues of fairness and equal representation: members of Congress from affected areas would argue that hundreds of thousands of residents in their communities would no longer “count” toward representation, effectively diluting the political voice of areas with more immigrants (who are often people of color). On the other hand, proponents of a citizen-only count (generally Republicans from states with fewer immigrants) argue it’s unfair for states to gain seats due to populations who are not eligible to vote. They contend that counting only citizens would align representation more closely with the voting electorate. Indeed, Republican lawmakers have periodically proposed requiring the census to count only citizens. In early 2023, the House of Representatives (then GOP-controlled) even passed a bill (H.R. 151, the “Equal Representation Act”) to mandate a citizenship question on the census and apportion based on citizens, claiming it would ensure only citizens influence representationcivilrights.orgcivilrights.org. This reflects a political calculus: Republican-leaning states stand to gain power if non-citizens (who tend to cluster in Democratic areas) are excluded. Our analysis shows those gains would be real, but relatively modest – still, in a closely divided House, a net swing of a few seats could be consequential.
One immediate implication if such a policy were seriously pursued is that district maps and plans would have to be redrawn across many states. States losing seats (like CA or NY) would undergo another round of redistricting to collapse districts – a process likely to pit incumbents against each other and could weaken representation for fast-growing immigrant communities (e.g. California’s Inland Empire or New York City’s outer boroughs might see districts merged or eliminated). States gaining seats would also redraw maps to add new districts, which could reopen contentious gerrymandering fights (for instance, North Carolina’s partisan battle over maps would intensify with an extra seat to allocate). These disruptions so soon after the 2020 redistricting cycle could create political chaos and confusion for voters, who may see their district boundaries shift mid-decade.
Historical and Legal Context
Historically, the principle of counting all persons for apportionment has been the norm since the nation’s founding. The original Constitution (Article I, Section 2) mandated counting “the whole Number of free Persons” and “three fifths of all other Persons” (the latter referring to enslaved people) while excluding “Indians not taxed”thirdway.org. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 to count “the whole number of persons in each State”, eliminating the three-fifths compromise. Ever since, every decennial census has included citizens and non-citizens alike for apportionment purposespewresearch.orgpewresearch.org. This includes vast waves of immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries – for example, millions of non-citizen European immigrants in 1890 or 1910 were counted, boosting states like New York and Illinois in those eras. There have been periodic proposals to change who is counted (in the 1920s, some suggested counting only citizens or only voters, and more recently proposals to exclude undocumented immigrants), but no such change has ever been implementedthirdway.org. In fact, Congress explicitly considered and rejected limiting apportionment to citizens when debating the 14th Amendment in 1866civilrights.orgcivilrights.org. The legal consensus has long been that apportionment must be based on total population. In Evenwel v. Abbott (2016), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the use of total population in drawing state legislative districts, noting that representatives serve all residents (“the whole community”) not just eligible voters – by extension underscoring that representational equality in Congress is based on all persons, not just citizensthirdway.org. Earlier, in Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992), the Court affirmed the inclusion of overseas federal employees in state counts, reinforcing that “persons in each State” means literally every person with usual residence in the statethirdway.org. There is no constitutional provision or statute that excludes non-citizens from the apportionment count, and attempts to do so unilaterally have been deemed unlawful.
Recent attempts to exclude certain groups underscore the legal barriers. In 2018, Alabama sued the Commerce Department to prevent counting undocumented immigrants, fearing the loss of a House seat to states like California. That lawsuit argued counting undocumented residents diluted Alabama’s representation, but federal courts dismissed the casein 2021brennancenter.orgbrennancenter.org, essentially for lack of standing and because the claim was not supported by law (the dismissal came after the 2020 census, rendering the issue moot for that cycle). The Trump administration in 2020 openly sought to alter the apportionment by first attempting to add a citizenship question to the census (blocked by the Supreme Court in Department of Commerce v. New York (2019)) and later issuing a presidential memorandum to exclude undocumented immigrants from the 2020 apportionment count. This effort was met with immediate legal challenges. While the Supreme Court in late 2020 punted on ruling directly (finding the issue not ripe, since the census results were not finalized), the plan never came to fruition. Career Census Bureau officials could not produce a reliable count of undocumented immigrants by the apportionment deadline, and the policy was rescinded by the incoming Biden administration. Notably, even some conservative justices hinted at skepticism of Trump’s authority to redefine “persons” for apportionment, and ultimately no apportionment excluding non-citizens has ever been carried outthirdway.org. In 2021, President Biden reaffirmed that the apportionment would include all residents, “without regard to immigration status,” restoring the traditional practice.
Legally, to exclude non-citizens from apportionment would almost certainly require a constitutional amendment. A simple statute like H.R. 151 would face strong constitutional objections, as it directly conflicts with the 14th Amendment’s text and intentcivilrights.org. Amending the Constitution is a very high bar (needing two-thirds of Congress and 38 states’ ratification), making this change highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the census itself would need to reliably determine citizenship status for every person – something the Census Bureau has cautioned against. Adding a citizenship question or otherwise trying to identify non-citizens at a granular level could undermine the accuracy of the count, because it might deter responses not only from undocumented immigrants but also from mixed-status households and even some citizens (fearing consequences)civilrights.orgcivilrights.org. This could lead to an undercount and faulty data for all purposes (not just apportionment). In short, implementing a citizens-only apportionment is fraught with legal and practical challenges.
Conclusion
Excluding non-citizens from congressional apportionment in 2025 would significantly reshuffle House seats among the states – shifting representation away from immigrant-heavy states toward states with fewer immigrants. California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois would lose seats, while states like Texas, Florida, and several others would gain. The net partisan effect would likely modestly help Republicans, as many of the lost seats would have been in Democratic strongholds and many of the gained seats would be in Republican-leaning areas. We estimate Democrats could lose roughly 3–5 House seats net under this scenario, slightly bolstering GOP margins. Such changes would have ripple effects on political power and resource allocation: immigrant-rich communities would have reduced representation and voice in Congress, and by extension less influence over federal decisions, while less diverse regions would gain influence.
However, it is crucial to recognize that this scenario remains a hypothetical exercise. Under current law and constitutional interpretation, non-citizens must be counted in apportionmentthirdway.org. The proposal to exclude them clashes with a long lineage of law and practice upholding that congressional representation is for “all persons” residing in each state. Any attempt to implement a citizens-only count would face formidable legal challenges and likely be struck down as unconstitutional without an amendment. The debate, nonetheless, highlights the intersection of immigration and political representation: as the population of non-citizens is not evenly distributed, their inclusion or exclusion can alter the balance of power among states. This has made the census a contentious political issue in recent years. Moving forward, unless the Constitution is changed, the United States will continue the tradition begun in 1790 and reaffirmed in the 14th Amendment – allocating political representation based on the total population, inclusive of non-citizens, in the interest of equal representation for all communitiesthirdway.org.
References:
U.S. Census Bureau – 2020 Census Apportionment Results (official state populations and House seats)pewresearch.orgpewresearch.org.
American Community Survey 2015–2019 – estimates of citizen and non-citizen populationsthearp.org.
American Redistricting Project – “2020 Congressional Apportionment – Total Citizen Population” (analysis of House seat distribution using citizen-only populations)thearp.org.
Center for Immigration Studies – “Tilting the Balance” (2024 report on immigration’s impact on apportionment; includes partisan lean analysis)cis.orgcis.org.
Pew Research Center – “How removing unauthorized immigrants from census could affect House reapportionment” (2020 analysis of excluding undocumented immigrants)pewresearch.orgpewresearch.org.
FactCheck.org – “Elon Musk Overstates Partisan Impact of Illegal Immigration on House Apportionment”(2024)factcheck.orgfactcheck.org.
Third Way – “Is Illegal Immigration Really a Democratic Plot to Sway Apportionment?” (2024) – historical/legal discussion and review of researchthirdway.orgthirdway.org.
Brennan Center for Justice – Alabama v. Commerce Dept. case summary (Alabama’s failed 2018 lawsuit on excluding undocumented from census)brennancenter.orgbrennancenter.org.
The Leadership Conference – “Save the 2030 Census and Honor the Constitution: Vote No on H.R.151” (2025 fact sheet opposing citizen-only apportionment)civilrights.orgcivilrights.org.
Electoral College Votes:
Electoral College Reallocation if Undocumented Immigrants Are Excluded (2025 Census Scenario)
The table below compares each state’s electoral votes in the 2024 election (based on the 2020 Census) with a revised allocation excluding undocumented immigrants from state populations. It also shows the estimated undocumented population in each state and the net change in electoral votes (House seats plus two senators) under the exclusion scenario:
State
Electoral Votes (2024)
Undocumented Pop. (est.)
Revised Electoral Votes
Net Change
Alabama
9
62,000migrationpolicy.org
9
0
Alaska
3
10,000migrationpolicy.org
3
0
Arizona
11
273,000migrationpolicy.org
12
+1
Arkansas
6
58,000migrationpolicy.org
6
0
California
54
1,800,000pewresearch.org
51
–3
Colorado
10
162,000migrationpolicy.org
10
0
Connecticut
7
113,000migrationpolicy.org
7
0
Delaware
3
24,000migrationpolicy.org
3
0
District of Columbia
3
21,000migrationpolicy.org
3
0
Florida
30
1,200,000pewresearch.org
32
+2
Georgia
16
339,000migrationpolicy.org
16
0
Hawaii
4
51,000migrationpolicy.org
4
0
Idaho
4
29,000migrationpolicy.org
5
+1
Illinois
19
400,000pewresearch.org
18
–1
Indiana
11
102,000migrationpolicy.org
11
0
Iowa
6
37,000migrationpolicy.org
6
0
Kansas
6
69,000migrationpolicy.org
6
0
Kentucky
8
46,000migrationpolicy.org
8
0
Louisiana
8
70,000migrationpolicy.org
8
0
Maine
4
5,000migrationpolicy.org
4
0
Maryland
10
225,000migrationpolicy.org
10
0
Massachusetts
11
209,000migrationpolicy.org
11
0
Michigan
15
91,000migrationpolicy.org
15
0
Minnesota
10
81,000migrationpolicy.org
10
0
Mississippi
6
25,000migrationpolicy.org
6
0
Missouri
10
50,000migrationpolicy.org
10
0
Montana
4
3,000migrationpolicy.org
4
0
Nebraska
5
42,000migrationpolicy.org
5
0
Nevada
6
168,000migrationpolicy.org
6
0
New Hampshire
4
11,000migrationpolicy.org
4
0
New Jersey
14
475,000pewresearch.org
14
0
New Mexico
5
63,000migrationpolicy.org
5
0
New York
28
650,000pewresearch.org
27
–1
North Carolina
16
296,000migrationpolicy.org
16
0
North Dakota
3
5,000migrationpolicy.org
3
0
Ohio
17
89,000migrationpolicy.org
17
0
Oklahoma
7
90,000migrationpolicy.org
7
0
Oregon
8
108,000migrationpolicy.org
7
–1
Pennsylvania
19
153,000migrationpolicy.org
19
0
Rhode Island
4
24,000migrationpolicy.org
4
0
South Carolina
9
88,000migrationpolicy.org
9
0
South Dakota
3
7,000migrationpolicy.org
3
0
Tennessee
11
128,000migrationpolicy.org
11
0
Texas
40
1,600,000pewresearch.org
41
+1
Utah
6
89,000migrationpolicy.org
7
+1
Vermont
3
3,000migrationpolicy.org
3
0
Virginia
13
251,000migrationpolicy.org
13
0
Washington
12
246,000migrationpolicy.org
12
0
West Virginia
4
4,000migrationpolicy.org
4
0
Wisconsin
10
70,000migrationpolicy.org
10
0
Wyoming
3
7,000migrationpolicy.org
3
0
Summary of Changes: Based on these projections, states with large undocumented immigrant populations would lose electoral votes, while several faster-growing states with fewer undocumented residents would gain. Notably, California(with an estimated 1.8 million unauthorized immigrants in 2022pewresearch.org) would drop to 51 electoral votes – 3 fewer than in 2024. This reflects California potentially losing two additional House seats on top of the one it already lost after 2020factcheck.orgfactcheck.org. New York (≈650,000 unauthorized in 2022pewresearch.org) and Illinois(~400,000pewresearch.org) would each lose one more seat, reducing them to 27 and 18 electoral votes, respectively. By contrast, Florida (≈1.2 million unauthorizedpewresearch.org) would gain about 2 extra electoral votes, reaching 32 total. Texas (≈1.6 millionpewresearch.org) would net +1 electoral vote, for 41 total. Several other states with relatively small unauthorized populations could pick up a seat – for example, Arizona (+1) and Idaho (+1) – due to their growing citizen populations and the reallocation of House seats from states like California and Illinois.
Critically, some states would retain seats they might have otherwise lost. Pew Research Center’s analysis of the 2020 Census found that Alabama, Minnesota, and Ohio would each have lost a House seat if apportionment were based on total population including undocumented immigrants – but would keep those seats if undocumented residents were excludedpewresearch.org. Our 2025 scenario likewise shows no change in electoral votes for those states, indicating they hold onto their representation. For instance, Alabama and Minnesota remain at 9 and 10 electoral votes, respectively, instead of dropping to 8 and 9 as might have occurred if all residents were countedpewresearch.org.
Overall, 13 states see a change in electoral votes under this exclusion scenario. The largest gainers are Florida and a handful of mid-sized states in the West and South, while losses are concentrated in a few high-immigrant states. Importantly, the total shift is modest – a net transfer of only a few House seats. Prior studies of the 2020 apportionment found that counting or excluding unauthorized immigrants would have changed only about 6 seats, with minimal partisan impactthirdway.orgfactcheck.org. Our updated projections similarly suggest a limited effect on the balance of power. The Electoral College outcome would not be dramatically altered – the changes (e.g. Florida +2, California –3) would not have swung recent presidential elections, given margins on the order of dozens of electoral votesfactcheck.org.
However, the trend since 2020 indicates that migration is bolstering populations in many Republican-leaning states. Between 2019 and 2023, about 95% of noncitizen population growth (including undocumented immigrants) occurred in GOP-led states – especially Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and even Kentuckythirdway.orgcato.org. If these patterns continue, excluding undocumented residents from the 2030 census could actually benefit red-leaning states more than blue statesthirdway.orgthirdway.org. In our 2025 scenario, states like Texas and Florida gain slightly, while California and New York lose representation – consistent with the idea that high-immigration “blue” states no longer enjoy a one-sided advantage from counting undocumented immigrants. In short, removing undocumented immigrants from the apportionment count would shuffle a few electoral votes among states, but it would not radically change the Electoral College mapfactcheck.orgthirdway.org. The main effect is that fast-growing states with smaller unauthorized populations (e.g. Florida, Arizona, Utah) would pick up one or two extra votes at the expense of states with large undocumented communities (e.g. California, Illinois)pewresearch.orgfactcheck.org. The overall balance between the two major parties would remain virtually unchanged in this hypothetical 2025 reallocationthirdway.org.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau apportionment data; Pew Research Center estimates of unauthorized immigrant populationspewresearch.orgpewresearch.org; Migration Policy Institute datamigrationpolicy.orgmigrationpolicy.org; Ballotpedia (2024 electoral votes by state)ballotpedia.orgballotpedia.org; Third Way and Cato Institute analyses of immigration’s impact on apportionmentthirdway.orgcato.org; FactCheck.org reportfactcheck.orgfactcheck.org. The revised projections are calculated using the method of equal proportions with state population estimates as of 2025.
News Feed (Home)
Popular Posts 
Events 
Blog 
Market 
Forum 
Go LIVE!
Headline News
VidWatch
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
