On February 25, the state of Ohio sued the U.S. Census Bureau over the Bureau’s announcement that states can’t obtain 2020 census data until September 30, 2021. The state says it must have the data sooner than that, in order to draw new boundaries for U.S. House and state legislative districts. State of Ohio v Coggins, s.d., 3:21cv-64. Here is the state’s Complaint.
A hearing will be held before U.S. District Court Judge Thomas M. Rose on March 19, 2021.
Doesn’t every State have this problem?
@ TJ
Yes. In fact, Secretary Galvin of Massachusetts it talking about suing the Census Bureau, as well, for this problem.
THIS IS ANOTHER PURGE LIST!
Whenever Census pop data shows up —
will take about O-N-E Second to have the rigged packed/cracked new gerrymander districts for 2021-2022 elections — bit longer to robo type boundary texts — and check for any missing/double precincts – esp in rural areas.
———-
PR and APPV
TOTSOP
The garbage comment on March 5, 2021 at 3:05 pm is from Cody Quirk.
A state could simply choose to elect its Congressional district entirely at large with ranked choice voting. They wouldn’t need to spend a second of time drawing up districts as soon as the apportionment numbers are available. Then, the voters would effectively create districts with their own votes. Those voter created “districts” could be geographical, partisan, economic, philosophical, or ethnic, entirely created by the voters when they rank their votes.
WZ – mere 53 USA Reps in CA in 2020.
—
PR and APPV
TOTSOP
Why not use proportional representation?
TJ –
PR – around since 1820s-1840s — 180-200 years
Both D and R gerrymander gangs love having minority rule gerrymander monarchs —-
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 gerrymander areas = 1/4 or less CONTROL.
Media and law and poisci profs and Court hacks too EVIL stupid to detect the minority rule math.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2021/03/05/redistricting-commission-chooses-company-redraw-michigan-districts/4589271001/
‘Picasso’ of gerrymandering selected to draw new districts
—–
Mich Gerrymander Comm at work — very EVIL CUTE –
picked a top RED commie Donkey gerrymander biz to make 2022-2030 *nonpartisan* gerrymander maps in Mich.
TOTAL rigged maps in 2022 – REAL voter power ONLY in commie or fascist primaries in new districts.
—–
PR and APPV
TOTSOP
@WZ,
Congress has dictated use of single-member districts. No option for states.
Gerrymander Congress monarchs enacted the 1967 SMD law for USA Reps as result of 1964 USA reps gerrymander case in SCOTUS.
Gerrymander monarchs just passed HR 1 to have more gerrymander comms to rig the SMDs more – for 2022-2030 rigged elections.
@DR,
The single-member district requirement has been in effect since the 1840s.Jim Riley
@JR
An “emergency” ruling by the courts could change that.
SMD CAME AND WENT SEVERAL TIMES FOR USA REPS
1932- MANY STATES HAD ALL AT LARGE REPS — DUE TO MAJOR UP/DOWN NUMBERS IN 1930 CENSUS – AND UNCONST FAILURE TO REDO REPS AFTER 1920 CENSUS – IE IN 1922-1930 ELECTIONS —
ONE MORE FACTOR IN HAVING GREAT DEPRESSION I IN 1929-1941.
@ Demo Rep:
Interesting
Which states had at-large elections for Reps in Congress in 1932?
I did a little research on this. The answer can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections#Massachusetts
The results reported in Wikipedia for the election of 1932 show that 5 states elected ALL of their Representatives in Congress at large (KY, MN, MO, ND and VA), and 7 states elected SOME of their Reps at large (CT, FL, IL, NY, OH, OK, and TX).
Typically, if a state LOST Reps from 1920, it chose ALL of its Reps at large, whereas, if a state GAINED Reps from 1920, it elected the additional Reps at large.
WZ –
1932 At large winners-
X Donkeys — Z Elephants ???
ANY defeated when SMD resumed ???
——–
PR and APPV
TOTSOP
some at large Reps elected in 1962 —
last election before 1964 SCOTUS gerrymander case for USA Reps
thus the 1967 SMD law
thus the pending HR 1 bill – gerrymander comms.
@DR and WZ,
Congress has required Single-Member Districts since 1842. Read this quite interesting two-part article:
https://history.house.gov/Blog/2019/April/4-16-Apportionment-1/
https://history.house.gov/Blog/2020/October/10-13-Apportionment-2/
@DR and WZ
Congress has required Single-Member Districts since 1842. Read this quite interesting two-part article:
https://history.house.gov/Blog/2019/April/4-16-Apportionment-1/
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Election-Statistics/Election-Statistics/
1920-2018 USA gerrymander — Clerk stats.
How many at large elections – esp in NNN2 years ???
2020 shortly ??????
@ Jim Riley
How were at large Rep elections authorized in 1932?
@ JR
Interesting article. Many quotes are even timely today.
IMO, in 1842, the presumption was that plurality voting would be used, in either district, or at-large, for Representatives. Now that alternative forms of voting are being more discussed, the possibility of new types of representation is more evident.
And, with the possibility that the census may not be complete enough to create new districts, this seems like the most opportune moment to consider alternative types of representation.
Also, in order to avoid the necessity of states who lose representation of having to select their entire delegation at-large, as in 1932, it would be best to adopt the Wyoming Rule such that no state will likely lose any Reps, and just the additional Reps would have to be elected at-large.
@WZ,
Go here.
https://www.census.gov/history/www/reference/apportionment/
First go to 1840 and read the apportionment act. The apportionment method was to divide the population of each state by 70,680 and give an additional represent for a fraction greater than one half (moiety). It also lists the results of the calculation. After most censuses, the apportionment numbers were listed, but not the method. You would have to read the legislative record to figure out how the numbers were derived.
1840 was the first apportionment where the number of representatives decreased. There was a concern that this might lead to more at-large elections, for the same reason that presidential electors switched to at-large elections. It gives more power to the dominant party.
In 1840, 31 representatives in 7 states were elected at large. Another 19 representatives were elected from multi-member districts in places like New York City, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.
There was also concern that a larger state might switch to at large elections. If you think about it, the reason California elects its electors at large is because Texas does and vice versa.
By 1842, 21 representatives from 4 states were elected at large. In 1844, this was down to 15 representatives from 4 states. In 1846, all representatives were elected from single member districts.
Following the 1870 Census, the House was expanded greatly to counteract the demise of the 3/5 clause. States that gained representation were permitted to elect the additional members at large for the 43rd Congress only. 11 states with 19 representatives did so in 1872. Only one continued in 1874.
A similar provision existed after the 1880 Census. A state that lost representation could elect all representatives at large. In 1882, 8 representatives from 7 states were elected at large. All four representatives from Maine which had lost a representative were elected at large. Again few states were out of compliance by 1884. There has always been a reluctance to enforce federal manner laws, if the only way to enforce it was deny an election. See 1842 election, where all At Large representatives were Democrats.
After the 1890 Census the wording was liberalized. A state that had no change in representatives could continue to hold elections using existing districts “until” they were changed. In some cases, this could be interpreted as the equivalent of “until hell freezes over”. States that gained representatives could elect the additional reprepresentatives at large until they redistricted.
These provisions were intended to handle an interim. Sometimes the interim might be indefinite. It might be until a legislature gained the will to make changes. This might be after a change in partisan control of the legislature.
After the 1910 Census the House was greatly expanded so as to prevent loss of representatives from more rural states which had been gaining as they filled up, suddenly found their growth stalled. As growth switched to the industrializing northeast.
In 1912, 27 representatives from 15 states were elected at large. By 1914, this declined to 10 representatives from 6 states; and in 1916, 8 representatives from 4 states. By 1918, Illinois was the lone holdout with 2 at-large representatives and 25 district representatives.
Congress skipped apportionment after the 1920 Census as they could not decide beside expanding the House or cutting representation to many states. Give the two alternatives, Congress did nothing.
I’ll get to 1930 in a future message.
@ JR
Thank you for for wealth of historical info.
IMO, we could have an apportionment crisis in 2022, given the suits by Ohio and other states.
Given the prospective changes in population from 2010 to 2020, it seems unlikely that any state would actually lose Reps if the Wyoming Rule were implemented in 2022:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule
The benefit of this is that there would be no need for any state to elect its entire Rep delegation at-large, if they are not able to finish redistricting in time. Any additional Reps could be elected at large, and the rest of the delegation by the current districts.
Too bad West Virginia isn’t likely gain a seat under the Wyoming Rule. Otherwise, Manchin would probably vote for it.
One interesting thing about the election of 1932. In every state in which Reps were elected at-large, it appears from the percentages reported that voters were only given 1 at-large vote each. It doesn’t look like any voter got multiple votes equal to the number of at large seats available.
@WZ,
Before the 1930 Census, Congress enacted a law providing for automatic apportionment. Because the 1920 apportionment had been skipped, there was a pent-up level change. 21 states lost seats, 11 states gained seats, and 16 remained the same, including the five one-seat States of AZ, DE, NV, NM, and WY.
Minnesota lost a seat from 10 to 9. The legislature passed a map, but it was vetoed by the governor. This led to Smiley v Holm 285 US 355 (1932). The primary issue in that case was whether the Article I, Section 4 conferred manner regulation on the legislature as a body, or on the legislative process. The SCOTUS determined that it meant the legislative process.
The veto meant that the bill had not become law. The existing law provided 10 districts, so there was NO Minnesota law for election of representatives. In this case the SCOTUS reasoned that Article I, Section 2 “chosen … by the People” meant at large elections in the absence of any state or federal law under Article I, Section 4. This is at the end of Smiley v Holm.
It was argued that the 1911 federal law providing for district elections was still valid. But the SCOTUS determined that the words “this apportionment” in Section 3 and 4 of the 1911 literally meant the apportionment based on the 1910 Census, and that there was legislative history that Congress has deliberately removed the language from the 1929 legislation.
As a result, 12 extra representatives in 7 States, and 42 representatives in 5 states that had lost representatives were elected at large in 1932. All the States which had lost representative except Norh Dakota had redistricted. North Dakota which had lost its 3rd representative continued to elect two representatives at large until 1962. Some of the states that had gained seats redistricted, but five: CT(1), IL(2), NY(2), OH(2), and OK(1) continued at-large elections throughout the decade.
In 1941, Congress passed a permanent apportionment act (subject to congressional amendment that has not occurred in the 8 decades since, except for temporary provisions for Alaska and Hawaii.
It provides for apportionment by the method of equal proportions (Huntington-Hill). The 1930 legislation had provided for either of two methods. In 1930, there was no difference. In 1940 the two methods would have resulted in a seat being awarded to Arkansas or Michigan. The Democratic Congress chose the method favoring Arkansas.
In addition, it provided for handling transitions in the number of representatives, and made them applicable to “any apportionment”.
This is still in statute: See 2 USC 2a(a,b,c).
In 1942, 13 representatives in 9 states were elected at large. By 1950, this had declined to 6 representatives in 4 states.
In 1952, 7 represesentatives in 5 states were elected at large. By 1960 this declined to 5 representatives in 3 states.
The Alaska and Hawaii statehood acts provided for representatives temporarily increasing the House to 437 members. But they explicitly provided for a reversion to 435 for the 1960 apportionment.
Alabama lost its ninth seat, failed to redistrict, and elected 8 representative at large in 1962. 9 representatives in 7 states were also elected at large.
This brings us up to just before ‘Wesberry v Sanders’
@WZ,
Compare results against district results in 1930 or 1934.
I think the percentages were calculating by dividing the number of all votes cast by the number to elected, and using that as the denominator for calculating percentages.
Fun fact, Minnesota elected a 3rd party candidate among its 9 representatives (Einar Hoidale).