Congressional Districting: The Issue of Equal Representation

This edition is published by Papamoa Press – www.pp-publishing.com

To join our mailing list for new titles or for issues with our books – papamoapress@gmail.com

Or on Facebook

Text originally published in 1963 under the same title.

© Papamoa Press 2018, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electrical, mechanical or otherwise without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Publisher’s Note

Although in most cases we have retained the Author’s original spelling and grammar to authentically reproduce the work of the Author and the original intent of such material, some additional notes and clarifications have been added for the modern reader’s benefit.

We have also made every effort to include all maps and illustrations of the original edition the limitations of formatting do not allow of including larger maps, we will upload as many of these maps as possible.

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTING

THE ISSUE OF EQUAL REPRESENTATION

BY

ANDREW HACKER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3

TABLES 6

THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 7

FOREWORD 9

1—EQUAL VOTES FOR EQUAL CITIZENS? 11

Political Equality and the American Tradition 13

The Constitution: Framers and Ratifiers 14

The Constitution Itself 14

The Philadelphia Convention 15

The Federalist Papers 17

The State Conventions 18

The Democratic Impulse 20

2—THE STATES AND THE JUDICIARY 23

Colegrove’s Cases 23

The State of the States 25

Redistricting: Action and Inaction 26

Rural Votes Compared to Urban Votes 28

Baker v. Carr 29

The Majority Opinion 30

Dissent by Justices Frankfurter and Harlan 31

Rhetoric and Reality 33

Judicial Activism 33

The Meaning of Equity 35

A Civil Rights Question 38

Source of Action on Congressional Redistricting 39

3—POLITICAL CARTOGRAPHY 40

The Single-Member District 41

Varieties of Gerrymandering 44

Excess Votes 45

Wasted Votes 46

Effective Votes and Unequal Districts 47

Gerrymandering at Work: The 1962 Elections 49

New York State 51

California 52

Michigan 55

Summary 57

Motives and Melioration 58

Fair Play in Gerrymandering? 58

Compact Constituencies? 60

4—UNEQUAL REPRESENTATION: CHARACTERISTICS AND CONSEQUENCES 64

Congressional Districts in the 1950’s 64

District Characteristics 66

Party Competition 66

Electoral Participation 67

Standard of Living 68

Party Support 69

Population Composition 70

Consequences for Policy 76

5—THE PROSPECT FOR THE SIXTIES 80

Action and Inaction 81

States Which Did Not Redistrict 81

States Which Gained Seats but Did Not Redistrict 83

States Which Partially Redistricted 84

States Which Completely Redistricted 86

Overall Trends in Redistricting 87

Two Americas: Rural and Suburban 89

The Case for Overrepresentation of Rural America 90

The Suburban Minority 93

Equal Representation: Pro and Con 94

Possible Alternatives, Probable Consequences 96

Congressional Action 96

State Action 97

Judicial Action 98

The Supreme Court and Equal Representation 100

BIBLIOGRAPHY 102

REQUEST FROM THE PUBLISHER 104

TABLES

1. Congressional Districts in 42 States: Value of Votes in Smallest District Compared to One Vote in Largest

2. Number and Population of Counties in the United States, 1910 and 1960

3. Lower Houses of State Legislatures: Year of Last Redistricting Before Baker v. Carr and Value of Vote in Smallest District Compared to One Vote in Largest

4. Value of Vote for State Legislature by Size of County, 1910 and 1960

5. Changes in Democratic Statewide Vote compared to Changes in Democratic Congressional Seats, Selected States, 1954-58

6. Relationship of Party's National Congressional Vote to Seats Won in the U. S. House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, 1942-62

7. Gerrymandering to Increase the Opposition's Excess Votes, a Hypothetical Case

8. Gerrymandering to Increase the Opposition's Wasted Votes, a Hypothetical Case

9. Gerrymandering Unequal Districts, a Hypothetical Case

10. Voting in 1962 Congressional Elections: New York

11. Voting in 1962 Congressional Elections: California

12. Voting in 1962 Congressional Elections: Michigan

13. Size and Party Competition: 426 Congressional Districts

14. Size and Electoral Participation: 426 Congressional Districts

15. Size and Standard of Living: 426 Congressional Districts

16. Size and Party Support: 426 Congressional Districts

17. Size and Population Composition: 426 Congressional Districts

18. Actual and Weighted Distribution of Congressional Seats: Party Support and Population Composition in 426 Districts

19. Selected Roll-Call Votes, Actual and Weighted, in the 87th Congress

20. Eighteen States Which Neither Gained Nor Lost Congressional Seats and Did Not Redistrict After 1960

21. Four States Which Gained Congressional Seats but Did Not Redistrict After 1960

22. Eleven States Which Gained or Lost Congressional Seats and Partially Redistricted After 1960

23. Nine States Which Changed Every Congressional District After 1960

24. Summary of 413 Congressional Districts, Heldover and New, 88th Congress

25. Congressional Representation: Past Experience and Future Projections

THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION

THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION is an independent organization devoted to nonpartisan research, education, and publication in economics, government, foreign policy, and the social sciences generally. Its principal purposes are to aid in the development of sound public policies and to promote public understanding of issues of national importance.

The Institution was founded December 8, 1927, to merge the activities of the Institute for Government Research, founded in 1910, the Institute of Economics, founded in 1922, and the Robert Brookings Graduate School of Economics and Government, founded in 1924.

The general administration of the Institution is the responsibility of a self-perpetuating Board of Trustees. The Trustees are likewise charged with maintaining the independence of the staff and fostering the most favorable conditions for creative research and education. The immediate direction of the policies, program, and staff of the Institution is vested in the President, assisted by the division directors and an advisory council, chosen from the professional staff of the Institution.

In publishing a study, the Institution presents it as a competent treatment of a subject worthy of public consideration. The interpretations and conclusions in such publications are those of the author or authors and do not purport to represent the views of the other staff members, officers, or trustees of the Brookings Institution.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

EUGENE R, BLACK, Chairman

ROBERT BROOKINGS SMITH, Vice Chairman

WILLIAM R. BIGGS, Chairman, Executive Committee

Arthur Stanton Adams

Dillon Anderson

Elliott V. Bell

Louis W. Cabot

Robert D. Calkins

Leonard Carmichael

Thomas H. Carroll

Edward W. Carter

Colgate W. Darden, Jr.

Marion B. Folsom

Gordon Gray

Huntington Harris

David M. Kennedy

John E. Lockwood

H. Chapman Rose

Sydney stein, Jr.

Donald B. Woodward

Honorary Trustees

Daniel W. Bell

Mrs. Robert S. Brookings

Huntington Gilchrist

John Lee Pratt

FOREWORD

THE SUPREME COURT’S decision in the case of Baker v. Carr, handed down in the spring of 1962, opened the way for reform of antiquated and inequitable patterns of representation in state legislatures. Over the ensuing twelve months, districting arrangements have been challenged in many states, and in several of them the legislatures have convened to draw up new districts which better reflect their actual population distribution.

The Court’s decision has raised a number of issues, including the question whether the drive for more equal representation in the state legislatures will affect the United States Congress. The Brookings Institution therefore asked Professor Andrew Hacker, of the Department of Government, Cornell University, to prepare a problem paper that would examine the present congressional districts from the viewpoint of the problems that might arise in connection with reapportionment in the states. The objective was a brief informative analysis drawing largely on available materials, with an early deadline precluding much new research.

Mr. Hacker’s report approaches this subject from several vantage points. Among these are: the constitutional and historical background of congressional districting; state and judicial action as it applies to the Congress; reasons for the disproportion between votes cast and seats won; and the extent and consequences of inequalities in representation in the House of Representatives. Mr. Hacker indicates that the House does not give an equal voice to all of its constituents, and that prevailing inequities may become even more pronounced since the forces opposing reform feel strongly that justice is on their side, and the courts have yet to indicate how far they will go in applying the doctrine of equal representation enunciated in Baker v. Carr—or, indeed, whether they will apply it at all to congressional districts.

The Institution and the author are grateful to those who read and commented on this study while it was in manuscript form. These included George A. Graham, Director of Governmental Studies, and Milton C. Cummings, Jr., Laurin L. Henry, M. Kent Jennings, F. P. Kilpatrick, and Harold Orlans of the Brookings staff; and also Stephen K. Bailey, Frank Munger, and Douglas Price of Syracuse University. Much of the preliminary statistical analysis was done by Mr. Hacker’s students in his Seminar in Political Behavior at Cornell University; this work was checked and organized by Mrs. Jean Curtis of Ithaca, New York. Mrs. Virginia Parker edited the manuscript. Mrs. Helen Eisenhart prepared the index. Final thanks are owed to the indispensable Congressional Quarterly for providing population and voting figures for congressional districts.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not purport to represent the views of the trustees, officers, or other staff members of the Brookings Institution, or of the other readers of the manuscript.

ROBERT D. CALKINS

President

March 1963

The Brookings Institution

1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington 6, D.C.

1—EQUAL VOTES FOR EQUAL CITIZENS?

MORE THAN 50 MILLION AMERICANS went to the polls to vote for members of the United States Congress on Tuesday, November 6, 1962. In theory, these Americans were all equal citizens in the eyes of the law; in practice, the votes they cast were not of equal value.

One of the chief determinants of the value of a vote is the size of the district in which a citizen lives. For the question is with how many of his neighbors must he share his representative in Congress. As an example, take Michigan. According to the 1960 Census, Michigan’s 16th Congressional District had a population of 802,994, whereas its 12th District contained 177,431 people. Thus, the residents of the former constituency had to share their congressman with four and a half times as many people as did those in the latter. Put another way, those living in the 12th District had four and a half times as much representation in Washington, for all congressmen have an equal vote once they are sworn in as members of the House of Representatives. Put still another way, if the residents of the 16th District are regarded as having one vote apiece, their fellow citizens in the 12th District are each able to cast what amounts to four and a half votes. But no matter what phrasing is used a fundamental factor in equality of votes is the size of a district compared with other districts in the same state.

Michigan is not a unique example. In Texas, the congressional district embracing the city of Dallas is over four times as populous as a rural district adjacent to it. In Colorado, the congressional district containing Boulder is more than three times the size of a district at the other end of the state. And in Ohio, the district with Dayton at its center is roughly three times as large as the congressional district in which Zanesville is the largest city. These instances represent glaring disparities in voting power, but only slightly less disturbing disparities are very widespread. Of the 42 states with more than one congressional district after the 1960 Census, exactly half contain constituencies where the vote of a citizen in the smallest congressional district is worth at least twice that of the citizen in the largest district. These states, as well as those with more equitable representation, are shown in Table 1.

Recently, these inequities in congressional apportionment have been receiving increasing attention throughout the country. This has been stimulated by a landmark Supreme Court decision, which dealt, however, with voting for state legislators rather than national representatives. The suit grew out of underrepresentation in Tennessee, where the vote for a representative in the lower house of the state legislature of a citizen living in the smallest district was worth 23 times the vote of the citizen who lived in the largest district.{1} In March 1962, acting on Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court for the first time ruled that the courts have a responsibility to see that each citizen shall have equal protection of the laws through equal participation in selecting his lawmaker. In its six-to-two decision, however, the Court did not spell out just how equal participation was to be achieved by the states. That was left to the lower courts.

This chapter will be given over to a discussion