MAGA Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 15, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to fundamentally alter the basis for congressional representation by counting only U.S. citizens for apportionment, potentially shifting political power among states.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Make Apportionment Great Again Act," mandates the exclusion of noncitizens from the population count used for congressional apportionment. It requires the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a revised tabulation of the 2020 decennial census by January 31, 2027 (or March 31, 2027, with extension), using official data to identify and exclude noncitizens. The bill also amends title 13, United States Code, to require a citizenship question in all future decennial censuses (starting 2030) and mandates expedited judicial review for any legal challenges.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that congressional representation should reflect the citizen population, as citizens are the ones who vote and are directly represented. They contend that including noncitizens dilutes the political power of citizens and unfairly allocates representation to states with larger noncitizen populations, particularly those with significant undocumented immigrant populations. They believe this change would ensure a more accurate and equitable distribution of political power based on the electorate.
Opponents contend
Opponents argue that the Constitution's "whole number of persons" clause has historically been interpreted to include all residents, regardless of citizenship status, for apportionment purposes. They contend that excluding noncitizens would be unconstitutional, discriminatory, and would undermine the principle of equal representation for all inhabitants. Critics also raise concerns about the feasibility and accuracy of identifying noncitizens using existing data, potentially leading to undercounts and further disenfranchisement.
The bill is short and its core provisions are clearly stated, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its primary effects within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2
Exclusion of Noncitizens from Apportionment Base
This section amends existing law (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)) to explicitly state that "individuals who are not citizens of the United States" shall be excluded from the population count used for congressional apportionment, alongside "Indians not taxed." This is a foundational change to the statutory basis for how congressional seats are allocated among states.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures that only those who are eligible to vote and are full members of the political community are counted for representation, aligning representation with the electorate.
Critics contend
Opponents contend this provision violates the historical interpretation of the 14th Amendment's "whole number of persons" clause, which has included all residents regardless of citizenship for apportionment. They argue it would disenfranchise communities with large noncitizen populations by reducing their representation.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the principle of counting all residents for representation versus counting only citizens, with significant implications for the distribution of political power among states.
Section 3(a)
Mandatory Revised Apportionment Excluding Noncitizens
This section mandates that by January 31, 2027 (or March 31, 2027, with an extension), the Secretary of Commerce must revise the 2020 decennial census population tabulation to include only U.S. citizens for apportionment purposes. This revision must use official data and records to either exclude noncitizens or include only citizens. The President then transmits this revised apportionment to Congress, which is deemed effective for future elections.
Section 3(b) and 3(e)
Use of Official Government Data and Records
This section specifies that the Secretary of Commerce must use "only official data and records in the possession of the Federal Government and State governments" for the revised apportionment, without repeating a decennial census. It permits statistical estimation, matching, and imputation methods. Executive agencies and states are mandated to provide relevant data upon request, to the extent permitted by law. "Official data and records" are defined as those validated by federal or state governments.
Section 4
Citizenship Status on Decennial Census
This section amends title 13, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Commerce to include a citizenship question on all future decennial census questionnaires, starting with the 2030 census. Respondents would indicate their status as a U.S. citizen, U.S. national (non-citizen), lawfully residing alien, or unlawfully residing alien. The Secretary must also publicly release disaggregated data for these four categories per state within 120 days of census completion.
Section 5
Expedited Judicial Review for Challenges to the Act
This section mandates expedited judicial review for any legal challenges ("covered actions") related to the validity, interpretation, or implementation of this Act. Such actions would be heard by a three-judge district court panel, with direct appeal to the Supreme Court, which may also review the case on an expedited basis.
Section 6
Federal Jurisdiction and Removal from State Courts
This section grants original federal jurisdiction to U.S. district courts for any civil action challenging the Act. It also allows the U.S. or any officer implementing the Act to remove such civil actions from state court to the appropriate U.S. district court. Upon removal, the action is immediately assigned to a three-judge district court panel.
States that any change in the number of Representatives due to this section shall be presumed lawful, and a court may set aside such apportionment only upon a "clear and convincing showing" that the Secretary of Commerce acted in excess of statutory authority or in violation of an express Constitutional limitation.
Section 3(d)
Why it matters:This is likely a deliberate attempt to make legal challenges to the revised apportionment significantly more difficult by raising the evidentiary standard for plaintiffs. It's not standard legislative practice to dictate judicial review standards for specific actions in this manner, suggesting an intent to insulate the apportionment from robust judicial scrutiny.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provision is necessary to prevent frivolous lawsuits and ensure the swift and effective implementation of the revised apportionment, reflecting the will of Congress and preventing undue judicial interference.
Case against: Opponents would contend that this provision attempts to unduly restrict judicial review, making it exceedingly difficult to challenge a potentially unconstitutional or improperly executed apportionment, thereby undermining checks and balances and access to justice.
Estimated impact: Significantly raises the bar for successful legal challenges against the new apportionment, potentially insulating it from judicial scrutiny and making it harder to overturn even if constitutional questions are substantial.