40:
429:
imbalances. The imbalance in the population of different congressional districts could have been fixed by an act of
Congress but Congress failed to enact any standards and requirements concerning congressional districts and elections. Due to congressional inaction and new justices on the Supreme Court, the courts intervened in 1962 in the case
532:, except that United States congressional districts are far larger in terms of population than constituencies of the Houses of Commons. Because there are, almost always, only two major parties on the ticket for an election to Congress in the United States, Congressional districts are different to districts or constituencies in
428:
that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interfere with malapportioned congressional districts, with
Congress having the sole authority to interfere with the same. For the next fifteen years, both congressional districts and state legislative districts would often have large population
477:
stating, "I happen to feel that at-large elections are completely the wrong way for the election of
Members of this body." The only real contention to this bill was whether there should be an exemption for Hawaii and New Mexico since they had always elected their representatives at large, with
516:, although the bill did allow for Hawaii and New Mexico to elect their representatives from single-member districts two years later than all other states due to their need to draw congressional districts for the first time in their histories.
504:
was opposed due to selfish reasons, arguing that "If under a decree of court one State could be required to be redistricted, there is no excuse for one State, two States, or 20 States to be excepted from that which others had to do."
461:
The act was enacted by
Congress in 1967 primarily due to two reasons: the fear that the courts would force elections to be conducted at large if congressional districts were not compliant with federal jurisprudence or law and that
482:
of Hawaii stating that "because of geographical reasons, it is not very simple to district the State of Hawaii With the adoption of the amendment, an orderly transition will be possible for our State," along with
Senator
487:
of New Mexico arguing that his state "has not been redistricted and it would cause a lot of trouble at this late hour to redistrict." However, there were members of
Congress opposed to this exemption, with Senator
544:
typically wins by a majority or close to a majority while those countries that regularly have more than two candidates on the ballot typically win only by a plurality due to all three of these countries employing
569:, as close to half of all votes in a competitive race go to a losing candidate. These voters are left without representation. However, in multi-member proportional districts, the proportion of the vote won by a
411:. Meanwhile, those states that elected representatives from single-member districts often elected representatives from districts that were not compact, contiguous, or roughly equal in population.
316:
chose to use districts), due to the presumption by
Congress that the requirements enacted by the Apportionment Act of 1911 were still in force since Congress never repealed those requirements.
436:
312:. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 did not contain any requirements on how representatives were to be elected, including any requirements on how districts were to be drawn (if the
629:
of
Tennessee tacked on a non-germane amendment – a federal ban on elections at large in all states with more than one Representative – to a previously insignificant private bill.
408:
400:
396:
384:
372:
290:
466:
may have dissolved their districts so that racial minorities would not be able to elect representatives that are from a minority race, particularly after the enactment of the
473:
In general, the requirement that all members of the House of
Representatives be elected from single-member districts was widely supported by Congress, with Representative
496:
arguing that "The proposal before us will apply to every State in the Union except two. That is not good legislation. It certainly is not good principle," while
Senator
553:
districts arguably more representative. On the other hand, districts in the United States are inherently less representative than those in other countries that employ
17:
183:
697:
376:
304:
in relation to congressional districting and the manner of how representatives were to be elected were no longer in force since the enactment of the
554:
529:
309:
245:
666:
600:
590:
740:
508:
Due to the widespread support of the members of Congress that there was a pressing need to ban elections at large, both the House and the
605:
565:. Each district in the United States only has one winner, therefore making competitive districts in particular less representative than
282:
241:
722:
313:
138:
125:
595:
169:
106:
98:
379:
but continued to use their previous congressional district boundaries while electing their new representatives at large.
305:
265:
249:
59:
689:
308:, there were no requirements imposed upon the states by Congress as to how representatives were to be elected to the
525:
253:
82:
467:
301:
39:
375:. All the states that elected some of their representatives at large (except Illinois) had gained seats from
573:
results in them winning the same or similar proportion of seats in a multi-member district, especially when
440:
214:
204:
150:
294:
435:
which required that all state legislative districts be of roughly equal population. The court used the
50:
An Act for the relief of Doctor Ricardo Vallejo Samala and to provide for congressional redistricting.
608:, an example of an act that contains two unrelated or distantly related subjects within the same act.
509:
395:
would continue to elect all their representatives at large from their admission into the union until
18:
An Act For the relief of Doctor Ricardo Vallejo Samala and to provide for congressional redistricting
546:
463:
445:
662:
424:
132:
524:
Due to this act, elections to the House of Representatives are very similar to elections to the
261:
224:
484:
348:
570:
578:
574:
537:
734:
693:
550:
541:
497:
479:
431:
297:
626:
489:
340:
91:
562:
474:
364:
142:
690:"There's a simple way to end gerrymandering. Too bad Congress made it illegal"
513:
388:
566:
336:
165:
501:
493:
360:
352:
332:
328:
324:
257:
422:
In 1946, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 4-3 decision
558:
404:
380:
368:
173:
110:
533:
392:
344:
453:
to the districts of the United States House of Representatives.
356:
300: (1932) that the previous requirements contained within the
256:
unless a state had elected all of its previous representatives
383:
would continue to elect their representatives at large until
407:
also elected all eight of its representatives at large in
724:
Towards Proportional Representation for the U.S. House
437:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
343:(2), all elected their representatives at large while
373:
1932 United States House of Representatives elections
148:
131:
121:
116:
97:
78:
73:
65:
54:
46:
727:– Amending the Uniform Congressional District Act
83:
387:, even after gaining a second seat in 1943, and
252:and every subsequent Congress be elected from a
371:each elected 1 of their seats at large in the
8:
359:each elected 2 of their seats at large; and
32:
244:bill that requires that all members of the
663:"The 1967 Single-Member District Mandate"
656:
654:
652:
650:
648:
646:
555:mixed-member proportional representation
439:to justify its ruling (specifically the
197:on November 8, 1967 with amendment
642:
618:
700:from the original on November 29, 2021
669:from the original on November 11, 2012
530:House of Commons of the United Kingdom
347:elected 3 of their 21 seats at large;
310:United States House of Representatives
246:United States House of Representatives
31:
601:Representation of the People Act 1948
591:Representation of the People Act 1884
549:electoral rules, making elections in
7:
606:Royal Assent by Commission Act 1541
540:since the winning candidate in the
688:Matthew Yglesias (July 20, 2015).
581:are part of the electoral system.
283:Supreme Court of the United States
238:Uniform Congressional District Act
88:Tooltip Public Law (United States)
33:Uniform Congressional District Act
25:
596:Redistribution of Seats Act 1885
211:Senate agreed to House amendment
201:House agreed to Senate amendment
38:
1:
164:in the House as H.R. 2275 by
741:90th United States Congress
306:Reapportionment Act of 1929
266:92nd United States Congress
250:91st United States Congress
213:on November 30, 1967 (
203:on November 28, 1967 (
60:90th United States Congress
757:
526:House of Commons of Canada
254:single member constituency
468:Voting Rights Act of 1965
302:Apportionment Act of 1911
260:, where this requirement
191:on October 17, 1967
157:
37:
207:) with further amendment
512:passed the bill with a
441:Equal Protection Clause
180:Committee consideration
27:American electoral law
176:) on January 12, 1967
227:on December 14, 1967
126:Title 2—The Congress
547:first-past-the-post
457:Legislative history
446:Wesberry v. Sanders
151:Legislative history
34:
425:Colegrove v. Green
272:Historical context
314:state legislature
234:
233:
225:Lyndon B. Johnson
195:Passed the Senate
100:Statutes at Large
69:December 14, 1967
16:(Redirected from
748:
710:
709:
707:
705:
685:
679:
678:
676:
674:
658:
630:
623:
485:Clinton Anderson
189:Passed the House
153:
135:sections created
101:
89:
85:
42:
35:
21:
756:
755:
751:
750:
749:
747:
746:
745:
731:
730:
719:
714:
713:
703:
701:
687:
686:
682:
672:
670:
660:
659:
644:
639:
634:
633:
624:
620:
615:
587:
571:political party
522:
464:southern states
459:
420:
377:reapportionment
279:
274:
230:
221:Signed into law
184:House Judiciary
149:
99:
87:
55:Enacted by
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
754:
752:
744:
743:
733:
732:
729:
728:
718:
717:External links
715:
712:
711:
680:
641:
640:
638:
635:
632:
631:
617:
616:
614:
611:
610:
609:
603:
598:
593:
586:
583:
579:leveling seats
575:overhang seats
567:safe districts
538:United Kingdom
521:
518:
458:
455:
419:
413:
403:respectively.
278:
275:
273:
270:
232:
231:
229:
228:
218:
208:
198:
192:
186:
177:
158:
155:
154:
146:
145:
136:
129:
128:
123:
122:Titles amended
119:
118:
114:
113:
103:
95:
94:
80:
76:
75:
71:
70:
67:
63:
62:
56:
52:
51:
48:
44:
43:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
753:
742:
739:
738:
736:
726:
725:
721:
720:
716:
699:
695:
691:
684:
681:
668:
664:
657:
655:
653:
651:
649:
647:
643:
636:
628:
622:
619:
612:
607:
604:
602:
599:
597:
594:
592:
589:
588:
584:
582:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
551:United States
548:
543:
542:United States
539:
535:
531:
527:
519:
517:
515:
511:
506:
503:
499:
498:Gordon Allott
495:
491:
486:
481:
480:Daniel Inouye
476:
471:
469:
465:
456:
454:
452:
448:
447:
442:
438:
434:
433:
432:Baker v. Carr
427:
426:
417:
414:
412:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
317:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
296:
292:
288:
287:Wood v. Broom
284:
276:
271:
269:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
242:redistricting
239:
226:
223:by President
222:
219:
216:
212:
209:
206:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
159:
156:
152:
147:
144:
140:
139:2 U.S.C.
137:
134:
130:
127:
124:
120:
115:
112:
108:
104:
102:
96:
93:
86:
81:
77:
72:
68:
64:
61:
57:
53:
49:
45:
41:
36:
30:
19:
723:
704:November 29,
702:. Retrieved
683:
673:November 29,
671:. Retrieved
627:Howard Baker
621:
523:
507:
490:Roman Hruska
472:
460:
450:
444:
430:
423:
421:
415:
341:North Dakota
327:(13 seats),
320:
318:
286:
280:
237:
235:
220:
210:
200:
194:
188:
179:
161:
117:Codification
29:
563:New Zealand
475:Gerald Ford
365:Connecticut
637:References
514:voice vote
389:New Mexico
281:Since the
277:Since 1929
162:Introduced
79:Public law
47:Long title
449:extended
416:Colegrove
339:(9), and
337:Minnesota
285:ruled in
262:commenced
166:Bob Sikes
143:§ 2c
74:Citations
66:Effective
735:Category
698:Archived
667:Archived
661:Flores.
585:See also
557:such as
536:and the
528:and the
502:Colorado
494:Nebraska
478:Senator
361:Oklahoma
353:Illinois
349:New York
333:Virginia
329:Kentucky
325:Missouri
264:for the
258:at large
105:81
559:Germany
405:Alabama
381:Arizona
369:Florida
319:Due to
248:in the
205:202–179
84:Pub. L.
534:Canada
520:Impact
510:Senate
393:Hawaii
367:, and
355:, and
289:,
141:
133:U.S.C.
109:
92:90–196
90:
625:Sen.
613:Notes
451:Baker
345:Texas
335:(9),
331:(9),
293:
240:is a
215:54–24
107:Stat.
706:2021
675:2021
577:and
409:1962
401:1970
399:and
397:1968
391:and
385:1946
357:Ohio
321:Wood
295:U.S.
236:The
58:the
694:Vox
561:or
500:of
492:of
443:).
418:era
291:287
182:by
111:581
737::
696:.
692:.
665:.
645:^
470:.
363:,
351:,
323:,
268:.
174:FL
708:.
677:.
298:1
217:)
172:–
170:D
168:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
