One person, one vote? Not so fast. Not in America where one vote can equal four. Even in Iraq—at best, a nascent democracy—all votes are equal.

With all the progress in voting equality, this seems impossible. It’s not. There are two components to voting equality: the equality of the right to cast votes and the equality of votes cast.

Equality of voting rights has been the focus for a century, from women to minorities. Equality of votes cast was ignored, but is fundamental to a democracy. We have recognize this as “one person, one vote.”

In 2004, the power of each vote depended on where it was cast because districts had different numbers of voters.

When the House was re-apportioned after the 2000 census, each district had 650,000 people. The representatives per state were determined by dividing a state’s population by 650,000, rounding up and down as required. This also determines a state’s votes in the Electoral College.

Inequalities among votes come from one rapidly growing group—non-citizens. Though they cannot vote, our 18.6 million non-citizens included in apportionment have as many “representatives” and votes in the Electoral College as citizens in 16 states. A state comprised only of non-citizens would be our second largest state, having 29 representatives.

In citizen apportionment, Members represent 600,000 citizens, not 650,000 people. In 2000, California was apportioned 53 seats. In a citizen apportionment, i.e., excluding its 5.7 million non-citizens, California would have only 47 seats. Texas would lose three seats. Florida, Arizona and New Mexico would lose one each.

Twelve states would each gain a seat: Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Montana’s 436,000 votes elected one representative. In California, 428,000 votes elected four. Similarly, 435,000 voted in Ohio’s 12th district, 380,000 in Minnesota’s 6th, for one seat. Two Wisconsin districts reported 800,000 votes cast—which equals eight California districts.

The low vote totals in some California districts are not due to uncontested races, low registration, or to low turnout. California’s 2004 voter registration and voter turnout were close to national averages.

In six districts, more citizens voted to elect one representative than voted in Rhode Island for two representatives. Inequalities abound, some even within a state: 12 New York districts each cast more votes for one seat than were cast in two other districts for two seats.

Non-citizens usually live in urban areas where they find better employment opportunities, lower-cost housing, and many citizens of similar origins, languages, and cultures. Traditionally, urban areas overwhelmingly elect Democrats. Therefore, it is not true “Democrats” want open borders to win “immigrant votes.” Democrats already have these “votes.”

A 2004 citizen apportionment moves four seats from Democrats to Republicans—eight Electoral votes, increasing Bush’s margin from 34 to 42 votes.

If Ohio voted Democratic, however, Kerry would have been our first “non-citizen” president by 272 to 266. In a citizen apportionment, Bush would win—apportionment would determine the outcome. Does the Constitution require apportionment be based on citizens? The “equal protection clause” as interpreted by “one person, one vote” says so.

The Constitution gives Congress power to conduct the Census “in such manner as [it]shall by law direct.” Hence, Congress has the power to correct vote inequalities. No amendment is required—mere legislation will do.

If Congress demurs, the Supreme Court will be petitioned to act and will find citizen apportionment necessary.

The choice between excluding non-citizens in apportionment to achieve voting equality for citizens and allowing inequality is no contest.

It’s not whether to correct this inequality; continued high increases in non-citizen populations tell us a correction will be necessary ... eventually.

The question is will Congress or the Supreme Court act in time to avoid international embarrassment—and political rancor—of having non-citizens “elect” our next President?

Ren Renfro ’72