[EL] Supreme Court Summarily Rejects Constitutional Challenge to the Size of the House of Representatives

[Pamela S Karlan]

And up until the permanent reapportionment act in the 1920’s, Congress in fact chose the size of the House after every decennial census.

Pam Karlan
Stanford Law School
karlan at stanford.edu<mailto:karlan at stanford.edu>
650.725.4851

On Nov 5, 2018, at 8:14 AM, John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com<mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>> wrote:

Right.  The current size was set in 1911 by statute

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 5, 2018, at 11:06 AM, Sean Parnell <sparnell at philanthropyroundtable.org<mailto:sparnell at philanthropyroundtable.org>> wrote:


Ultimately, the question whether we should expand the House of Representatives is one for the Constitutional amendment process. Whatever else we can say on the policy question, I’m confident that the remedy is not going to be imposed by the federal courts on the country.

My understanding is that the U.S. Congress could, if it desired, choose to expand the size of the House of Representatives? See https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/

Sean Parnell
Vice President of Public Policy, The Philanthropy Roundtable
1120 20th Street NW, Suite 550 South
Washington, DC  20036
(202) 600-7883 (direct)
(571) 289-1374 (mobile)
sparnell at philanthropyroundtable.org<mailto:sparnell at philanthropyroundtable.org>







Supreme Court Summarily Rejects Constitutional Challenge to the Size of the House of Representatives<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101956>
Posted on November 5, 2018 7:03 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101956> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

There were no noted dissents in this order<https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110518zor_o759.pdf> dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.

From my earlier coverage<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=99364>:

The legal claim is more than a bit nutty, and it does not appear to be litigated very well. But in essence (as noted in this Town Hall piece<https://townhall.com/columnists/pauljacob/2018/06/04/the-first-and-most-important-first-amendment-n2486974?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=>), depends on the idea that the country ratified a  constitutional amendment but no one knows it….

Plaintiffs’ case has lots of procedural problems as well. It does not appear to be handled by lawyers who can litigate properly before the court.

Ultimately, the question whether we should expand the House of Representatives is one for the Constitutional amendment process. Whatever else we can say on the policy question, I’m confident that the remedy is not going to be imposed by the federal courts on the country.
<image001.png><https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101956&title=Supreme%20Court%20Summarily%20Rejects%20Constitutional%20Challenge%20to%20the%20Size%20of%20the%20House%20of%20Representatives>
Posted in legislation and legislatures<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20181105/007ced42/attachment.html>