no one district electing more than one Representative. * * *' U.S.C.onst. Some of them, of course, would ordinarily come from districts the populations of which were about that which would result from an apportionment based solely on population. . . I, § 4. In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the Constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which the Federal Constitution apportions the representatives. The district court dismissed the complaint for non-justiciability and want of equity. The average population of the ten districts is 394,312, less than half that of the Fifth. Wesberry was the first real test of the "reapportionment revolution" set in motion by Baker v.Carr (1962), in which the Supreme Court held that federal courts could rule on reapportionment questions.. James P. Wesberry, Jr., was one of the citizens of Fulton County, Georgia, who filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia challenging the state apportionment law. The issue before the Court was whether or not the Congress had power to pass laws protecting the right to vote for a member of Congress from fraud and violence; the Court relied expressly on Art. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free. [Footnote 2/48]. . 805; Carroll v. Becker, 285 U.S. 380, 52 S.Ct. In urging the people to adopt the Constitution, Madison said in No. All Rights Reserved Sess., pp. Since no slave voted, the inclusion of three-fifths of their number in the basis of apportionment gave the favored States representation far in excess of their voting population. As will be shown, these constitutional provisions and their "historical context," ante, p. 376 U.S. 7, establish: "1. that congressional Representatives are to be apportioned among the several States largely, but not entirely, according to population;", "2. that the States have plenary power to select their allotted Representatives in accordance with any method of popular election they please, subject only to the supervisory power of Congress; and", "3. that the supervisory power of Congress is exclusive. Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. In the absence of a reapportionment, all the Representatives from a State found to have violated the standard would presumably have to be elected at large. 333,290 299,156 34,134, Ohio (24)...... 726,156.

Some states might regulate the elections on the principles of equality, and others might regulate them otherwise. As late as 1842, seven States still conducted congressional elections at large. James Madison, who took careful and complete notes during the Convention, believed that in interpreting the Constitution later generations should consider the history of its adoption: 'Such were the defects, the deformities, the diseases and the ominous prospects, for which the Convention were to provide a remedy, and which ought never to be overlooked in expounding & appreciating the Constitutional Charter the remedy that was provided.' Get your answers by asking now. Perhaps it then will be objected that, from the supposed opposition of interests in the federal legislature, they may never agree upon any regulations; but regulations necessary for the interests of the people can never be opposed to the interests of either of the branches of the federal legislature, because that the interests of the people require that the mutual powers of that legislature should be preserved unimpaired in order to balance the government. . VII, which restricted the vote to freeholders 'possessing a freehold of the value of twenty pounds, * * * or (who) have rented a tenement * * * of the yearly value of forty shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to this State.' [Footnote 20] A number of delegates supported this plan. ; H.R. 552,863 227,692 325,171, Oregon (4). The Court purports to find support for its position in the third paragraph of Art. 73, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. The case arose from a lawsuit against the state of Tennessee, which had not conducted redistricting since 1901. In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the Constitution of the State who will be included in the census by which the Federal Constitution apportions the representatives. . . All Rights Reserved. I, § 2, that Representatives be chosen 'by the People of the several States'9 means that as nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's.10 This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespread practice in the first 50 years of our Nation's history.11 It would be extraordinary to suggest that in such statewide elections the votes of inhabitants of some parts of a State, for example, Georgia's thinly populated Ninth District, could be weighted at two or three times the value of the votes of people living in more populous parts of the State, for example, the Fifth District around Atlanta.

VII, which restricted the vote to freeholders, "possessing a freehold of the value of twenty pounds, . The provisions for apportioning Representatives and direct taxes have been amended by the Fourteenth and Sixteenth Amendments, respectively. 8266, 86th Cong., 1st Sess.

Cornell. . .

4054. The appearance of support in that section derives from the Court's confusion of two issues: direct election of Representatives within the States and the apportionment of Representatives among the States. MR. JUSTICE CLARK, concurring in part and dissenting in part. If the Federal Constitution intends that, when qualified voters elect members of Congress, each vote be given as much weight as any other vote, then this statute cannot stand. 1499 (remarks of Mr. Dickinson). § 2a to provide: '(c) Each State entitled to more than one Representative in Congress under the apportionment provided in subsection (a) of this section, shall establish for each Representative a district composed of contiguous and compact territory, and the number of inhabitants contained within any district so established shall not vary more than 10 per centum from the number obtained by dividing the total population of such States, as established in the last decennial census, by the number of Representatives apportioned to such State under the provisions of subsection (a) of this section. 7-8. We agree with Judge Tuttle that, in debasing the weight of appellants' votes, the State has abridged the right to vote for members of Congress guaranteed them by the United States Constitution, that the District Court should have entered a declaratory judgment to that effect, and that it was therefore error to dismiss this suit. [Footnote 30] The Constitution embodied Edmund Randolph's proposal for a periodic census to ensure "fair representation of the people," [Footnote 31] an idea endorsed by Mason as assuring that "numbers of inhabitants", should always be the measure of representation in the House of Representatives. . . Is the standard an absolute or relative one, and if the latter to what is the difference in population to be related? Cf. As the Court repeatedly emphasizes, delegates to the Philadelphia Convention frequently expressed their view that representation should be based on population. [Footnote 2/51]".
; H.R. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. Why America is not giving free health care facilities for all its citizens? "Rotten boroughs" have long since disappeared in Great Britain. . 726,156 236,288 489,868, Oklahoma (6). 331,818 275,103 56,715, New Jersey (15) . The Court's holding is,of course, derogatory not only of the power of the state legislatures, but also of the power of Congress, both theoretically and as they have actually exercised their power.

The difference between the largest and smallest districts in Connecticut is, however, 370,613. 57, Madison merely stated his assumption that Philadelphia's population would entitle it to two Representatives in answering the argument that congressional constituencies would be too large for good government.
Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368, 372 U. S. 381. The above implications of the three-fifths compromise were recognized by Madison. [Footnote 33] And the delegates defeated a motion made by Elbridge Gerry to limit the number of Representatives from newer Western States so that it would never exceed the number from the original States. If, then, slaves were intended to be without representation, Article I did exactly what the Court now says it prohibited: it "weighted" the vote of voters in the slave States. Then the Court simply "remanded" that particular case back to lower courts to continue considering what exactly to do. He justified Congress' power with the 'plain proposition, that every government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation. 206 F.Supp., at 285 (footnote omitted).

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. With respect to apportionment of the House, Luce states: "Property was the basis, not humanity." I, § 4, [Footnote 43]as meant to be used to vindicate the people's right to equality of representation in the House. The delegates were quite aware of what Madison called the 'vicious representation' in Great Britain35 whereby 'rotten boroughs' with few inhabitants were represented in Parliament on or almost on a par with cities of greater population.

539,592 373,583 166,009, Kentucky (7). See Thorpe, op. Before the war ended, the Congress had proposed and secured the ratification by the States of a somewhat closer association under the Articles of Confederation. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663, which, after full discussion of Colegrove and all the opinions in it, held that allegations of disparities of population in state legislative districts raise justiciable claims on which courts may grant relief.

Leaving to another day the question of what Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. No. at 110 U. S. 663. . Since the difference between the largest and smallest districts in Iowa is 89,250, and the average population per district in Iowa is only 393,934, Iowa's 7 Representatives might well lose their seats as well. . . I, § 2,that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" means that, as nearly as is practicable, one person's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. 4340, and H.R. Within this scheme, the appellants do not have the right which they assert, in the absence of provision for equal districts by the Georgia Legislature or the Congress. . In sharp contrast to this unanimous silence on the issue of this case when Art. at 1210, 90 L.Ed.