Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:40:50.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Traditional Districting Principles: Judicial Myths vs. Reality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

Micah Altman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One person, one vote. With this principle, the Court permanently changed representation in the United States. Equal population requirements changed the face of legislative redistricting in the 1960s, when the Supreme Court applied it to congressional districts in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), and to state legislatures in Reynolds v. Sims, 84 S. Ct. 1362 (1964). Equality in district population was valued not only as instrumental to other goals but also for itself, as Justice Black explained in Wesberry: “As nearly as practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s. . . . To say that a vote is worth more in one district than another would . . . run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government.”

As Justice Brennan made clear, the Court based its decision in large part on a particular understanding of the historical meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and of article 1, section 2, of the Constitution. And as widely accepted as this principle has come to be, it has been subject to severe historical criticism, criticism that has never been resolved. For example, Berger (1977) claims that malapportionment was historically present and accepted before and during the creation of the Fourteenth Amendment and hence that the equal protection clause could not have implied the equal population principle (from chapter 5): “Certainly there was no disclosure that such intrusion [on apportionment] was contemplated; there is in fact striking evidence that malapportionment was an accepted practice.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Social Science History , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , Summer 1998 , pp. 159 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 1998 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Micah Altman is a Ph.D. candidate in the Division of Humanities and Social Sciences at the California Institute of Technology, and a research fellow in the Harvard-MIT Data Center at Harvard University. He would like to thank Morgan Kousser for his guidance during the development of this article. An earlier version of this article was delivered at the annual meeting of the Social Science History Association in Chicago, November 1995.

References

Altman, Micah (1995) “The consistency and effectiveness of mandatory district compactness rules.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Political Science Association, Chicago, November.Google Scholar
Avins, Alfred (1966) “Literacy tests and the Fourteenth Amendment: The contemporary understanding.” Albany Law Review 30, no. 1: 229–60.Google Scholar
Balinski, Michel L., and Peyton Young, H. (1982) Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Blair, B. J., and Bliss, T. H. (1967) “The measurement of shape in geography: An appraisal of methods and techniques.” Bulletin of Quantitative Data for Geographers 11:1–44.Google Scholar
Congressional Globe (1842) 27th Cong., 2d sess., vol. 11.Google Scholar
Congressional Globe (1871) 42d Cong., 2d sess., vol. 11.Google Scholar
Congressional Information Service (1980) CIS US Congressional Committee Prints Index: From the Earliest Publications through 1969. Washington, DC: Congressional Information Service.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly Inc. (1964) CQ_Census Analysis: Congressional Districts in the United States. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly Inc. (1983) Congressional Districts in the 1980s. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly Inc. (1993) Congressional Districts in the 1990s. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly Staff (1995) “Court considers question of minority districts.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 53 (April 22): 1133–34.Google Scholar
Congressional Record (1882) 47th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 12.Google Scholar
Congressional Record (1901) 56th Cong., 2d sess., vol. 7.Google Scholar
Cortner, Richard C. (1970) The Apportionment Cases. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Cramer, Harald (1946) Mathematical Methods of Statistics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert G. Jr. (1968) Democratic Representation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flaherty, Mark S., and Crumplin, William W. (1992) “Compactness and electoral boundary adjustment: An assessment of alternative measures.” Canadian Geographer 36: 159–71.Google Scholar
Foster, James E. (1985) “Inequality measurement.” Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics 33: 31–67.Google Scholar
Frolov, Yu S. (1974) “Measuring the shape of geographical phenomena: A history of the issue.” Izvestuya Vsesoyuznogo Geogficheskogo Obshchestva 4: 281–91.Google Scholar
Griffith, Elmer C. (1974 [1907]) Rise and Development of the Gerrymander. New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar
Idelson, Holly (1995) “It’s back to drawing board on minority districts.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 53 (October 7): 3065–66.Google Scholar
Jewell, Malcolm (1962) “Political patterns in apportionment,” in Jewell, Malcolm (ed.) The Politics of Apportionment. New York: Atherton Press.Google Scholar
Joint Committee on Printing (1913) Congressional Directory. 63d Cong., 1st sess. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Joint Committee on Printing (1923) Congressional Directory. 68th Cong., 1st sess. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Kelly, Alfred H. (1965) “Clio and the Court.” Supreme Court Review 1965:119–58.Google Scholar
Kousser, Morgan (1992) “The Voting Rights Act and the two Reconstructions,” in Grofman, Bernard and Chandler, D. (eds.) Controversies in Minority Voting. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Martis, Kenneth C., and Rowles, Ruth Anderson (1982) The Historical Atlas of United States Congressional Districts, 1789–1983. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
McKay, Robert B. (1965) Reapportionment: The Law and Politics of Equal Representation. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.Google Scholar
Moxley, Warden, Walker, Wayne, and Healy, Robert (1974) Congressional Districts in the 1970s. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Niemi, Richard G., Grofman, Bernard, Carlucci, Carl, and Hofeller, Thomas (1990) “Measuring compactness and the role of a compactness standard in a test for partisan and racial gerrymandering.” Journal of Politics 53: 1155–79.Google Scholar
Parsons, Stanley B., Beach, William W., and Dubin, Michael J. (1986) Congressional Districts and Data, 1843–1883. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, Stanley B., Beach, William W., and Hermann, Dan (1978) United States Congressional Districts, 1788–1841. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, Stanley B., Dubin, Michael J., and Parsons, Karen Toombs (1990) United States Congressional Districts, 1883–1913. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Pildes, Richard H., and Niemi, Richard G. (1993) “Expressive harms, ‘bizarre districts,’ and voting rights: Evaluating election-district appearances after Shaw.” Michigan Law Review 92:101–205.Google Scholar
Polsby, David, and Popper, Robert (1991) “The third criterion: Compactness as a procedural safeguard against partisan gerrymandering.” Yale Law and Policy Review 9: 301–53.Google Scholar
Schmeckebier, Laurence F. (1941) Congressional Apportionment. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Sherstyuk, Katerina (1993) “How to gerrymander: A formal analysis.” Social Science Working Paper, California Institute of Technology 855:Google Scholar
Tyler, Gus, and Wells, David I. (1962) “New York: ‘Constitutionally Republican,’” in Jewell, Malcolm (ed.) The Politics of Apportionment. New York: Atherton Press.Google Scholar
U.S. Government Printing Office (1933) Congressional Directory. 73d Cong., 1st sess. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Government Printing Office (1943) Congressional Directory. 78th Cong., 1st sess. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Government Printing Office (1953) Congressional Directory. 83d Cong., 1st sess. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Van Alstyne, William W. (1965) “The Fourteenth Amendment, The ‘right’ to vote and the 39th Congress.” Supreme Court Review 1965:33–86.Google Scholar
Young, H. P. (1988) “Measuring the compactness of legislative districts.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 8:105–15.Google Scholar