29:
418:
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
521:, 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
417:
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
466:
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
505:, 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.
493:
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."
450:
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
471:
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
476:
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
533:
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
558:, 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
400:. 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.
305:
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.
425:
301:. 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
618:
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.
397:
389:
385:
373:
361:
279:
455:
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
462:
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
485:
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
542:
districts arguably more representative. On the other hand, districts in the United States are inherently less representative than those in other countries that employ
172:
686:
365:
293:
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
543:
518:
298:
234:
655:
589:
579:
729:
497:
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
594:
554:. Each district in the United States only has one winner, therefore making competitive districts in particular less representative than
271:
230:
711:
302:
127:
114:
584:
158:
95:
87:
368:
but continued to use their previous congressional district boundaries while electing their new representatives at large.
294:
254:
238:
48:
678:
297:, there were no requirements imposed upon the states by Congress as to how representatives were to be elected to the
514:
242:
71:
456:
290:
28:
364:. All the states that elected some of their representatives at large (except Illinois) had gained seats from
562:
results in them winning the same or similar proportion of seats in a multi-member district, especially when
429:
203:
193:
139:
283:
424:
which required that all state legislative districts be of roughly equal population. The court used the
39:
An Act for the relief of Doctor Ricardo Vallejo Samala and to provide for congressional redistricting.
597:, an example of an act that contains two unrelated or distantly related subjects within the same act.
498:
384:
would continue to elect all their representatives at large from their admission into the union until
535:
452:
434:
651:
413:
121:
513:
Due to this act, elections to the House of Representatives are very similar to elections to the
250:
213:
473:
337:
559:
567:
563:
526:
723:
682:
539:
530:
486:
468:
420:
286:
615:
478:
329:
80:
551:
463:
353:
131:
679:"There's a simple way to end gerrymandering. Too bad Congress made it illegal"
502:
377:
555:
325:
154:
490:
482:
349:
341:
321:
317:
313:
246:
411:
In 1946, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 4-3 decision
547:
393:
369:
357:
162:
99:
522:
381:
333:
442:
to the districts of the United States House of Representatives.
345:
289: (1932) that the previous requirements contained within the
245:
unless a state had elected all of its previous representatives
372:
would continue to elect their representatives at large until
396:
also elected all eight of its representatives at large in
713:
Towards Proportional Representation for the U.S. House
426:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
332:(2), all elected their representatives at large while
362:
1932 United States House of Representatives elections
137:
120:
110:
105:
86:
67:
62:
54:
43:
35:
716:– Amending the Uniform Congressional District Act
72:
376:, even after gaining a second seat in 1943, and
241:and every subsequent Congress be elected from a
360:each elected 1 of their seats at large in the
8:
348:each elected 2 of their seats at large; and
21:
233:bill that requires that all members of the
652:"The 1967 Single-Member District Mandate"
645:
643:
641:
639:
637:
635:
544:mixed-member proportional representation
428:to justify its ruling (specifically the
186:on November 8, 1967 with amendment
631:
607:
689:from the original on November 29, 2021
658:from the original on November 11, 2012
519:House of Commons of the United Kingdom
336:elected 3 of their 21 seats at large;
299:United States House of Representatives
235:United States House of Representatives
20:
590:Representation of the People Act 1948
580:Representation of the People Act 1884
538:electoral rules, making elections in
7:
595:Royal Assent by Commission Act 1541
529:since the winning candidate in the
677:Matthew Yglesias (July 20, 2015).
570:are part of the electoral system.
272:Supreme Court of the United States
227:Uniform Congressional District Act
77:Tooltip Public Law (United States)
22:Uniform Congressional District Act
14:
585:Redistribution of Seats Act 1885
200:Senate agreed to House amendment
190:House agreed to Senate amendment
27:
1:
153:in the House as H.R. 2275 by
730:90th United States Congress
295:Reapportionment Act of 1929
255:92nd United States Congress
239:91st United States Congress
202:on November 30, 1967 (
192:on November 28, 1967 (
49:90th United States Congress
746:
515:House of Commons of Canada
243:single member constituency
457:Voting Rights Act of 1965
291:Apportionment Act of 1911
249:, where this requirement
180:on October 17, 1967
146:
26:
196:) with further amendment
501:passed the bill with a
430:Equal Protection Clause
169:Committee consideration
16:American electoral law
165:) on January 12, 1967
216:on December 14, 1967
115:Title 2—The Congress
536:first-past-the-post
446:Legislative history
435:Wesberry v. Sanders
140:Legislative history
23:
414:Colegrove v. Green
261:Historical context
303:state legislature
223:
222:
214:Lyndon B. Johnson
184:Passed the Senate
89:Statutes at Large
58:December 14, 1967
737:
699:
698:
696:
694:
674:
668:
667:
665:
663:
647:
619:
612:
474:Clinton Anderson
178:Passed the House
142:
124:sections created
90:
78:
74:
31:
24:
745:
744:
740:
739:
738:
736:
735:
734:
720:
719:
708:
703:
702:
692:
690:
676:
675:
671:
661:
659:
649:
648:
633:
628:
623:
622:
613:
609:
604:
576:
560:political party
511:
453:southern states
448:
409:
366:reapportionment
268:
263:
219:
210:Signed into law
173:House Judiciary
138:
88:
76:
44:Enacted by
17:
12:
11:
5:
743:
741:
733:
732:
722:
721:
718:
717:
707:
706:External links
704:
701:
700:
669:
630:
629:
627:
624:
621:
620:
606:
605:
603:
600:
599:
598:
592:
587:
582:
575:
572:
568:leveling seats
564:overhang seats
556:safe districts
527:United Kingdom
510:
507:
447:
444:
408:
402:
392:respectively.
267:
264:
262:
259:
221:
220:
218:
217:
207:
197:
187:
181:
175:
166:
147:
144:
143:
135:
134:
125:
118:
117:
112:
111:Titles amended
108:
107:
103:
102:
92:
84:
83:
69:
65:
64:
60:
59:
56:
52:
51:
45:
41:
40:
37:
33:
32:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
742:
731:
728:
727:
725:
715:
714:
710:
709:
705:
688:
684:
680:
673:
670:
657:
653:
646:
644:
642:
640:
638:
636:
632:
625:
617:
611:
608:
601:
596:
593:
591:
588:
586:
583:
581:
578:
577:
573:
571:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
540:United States
537:
532:
531:United States
528:
524:
520:
516:
508:
506:
504:
500:
495:
492:
488:
487:Gordon Allott
484:
480:
475:
470:
469:Daniel Inouye
465:
460:
458:
454:
445:
443:
441:
437:
436:
431:
427:
423:
422:
421:Baker v. Carr
416:
415:
406:
403:
401:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
306:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
285:
281:
277:
276:Wood v. Broom
273:
265:
260:
258:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
231:redistricting
228:
215:
212:by President
211:
208:
205:
201:
198:
195:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
174:
170:
167:
164:
160:
156:
152:
149:
148:
145:
141:
136:
133:
129:
128:2 U.S.C.
126:
123:
119:
116:
113:
109:
104:
101:
97:
93:
91:
85:
82:
75:
70:
66:
61:
57:
53:
50:
46:
42:
38:
34:
30:
25:
19:
712:
693:November 29,
691:. Retrieved
672:
662:November 29,
660:. Retrieved
616:Howard Baker
610:
512:
496:
479:Roman Hruska
461:
449:
439:
433:
419:
412:
410:
404:
330:North Dakota
316:(13 seats),
309:
307:
275:
269:
226:
224:
209:
199:
189:
183:
177:
168:
150:
106:Codification
18:
552:New Zealand
464:Gerald Ford
354:Connecticut
626:References
503:voice vote
378:New Mexico
270:Since the
266:Since 1929
151:Introduced
68:Public law
36:Long title
438:extended
405:Colegrove
328:(9), and
326:Minnesota
274:ruled in
251:commenced
155:Bob Sikes
132:§ 2c
63:Citations
55:Effective
724:Category
687:Archived
656:Archived
650:Flores.
574:See also
546:such as
525:and the
517:and the
491:Colorado
483:Nebraska
467:Senator
350:Oklahoma
342:Illinois
338:New York
322:Virginia
318:Kentucky
314:Missouri
253:for the
247:at large
94:81
548:Germany
394:Alabama
370:Arizona
358:Florida
308:Due to
237:in the
194:202–179
73:Pub. L.
523:Canada
509:Impact
499:Senate
382:Hawaii
356:, and
344:, and
278:,
130:
122:U.S.C.
98:
81:90–196
79:
614:Sen.
602:Notes
440:Baker
334:Texas
324:(9),
320:(9),
282:
229:is a
204:54–24
96:Stat.
695:2021
664:2021
566:and
398:1962
390:1970
388:and
386:1968
380:and
374:1946
346:Ohio
310:Wood
284:U.S.
225:The
47:the
683:Vox
550:or
489:of
481:of
432:).
407:era
280:287
171:by
100:581
726::
685:.
681:.
654:.
634:^
459:.
352:,
340:,
312:,
257:.
163:FL
697:.
666:.
287:1
206:)
161:–
159:D
157:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
