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

[Rob Richie]

Pam, Sean and John are absolutely correct - -435 is no magic number, just
an accident of history that goes with a certain federal election law or
practice becoming seen as "constitutional" if done for a generation or two.
Other examples include states holding statewide plurality vote elections to
determine how to allocate electors for president, using single winner
districts for the US House, and establishing a definitive Election Day for
congressional elections.

Having 435 House Members certainly could use more attention heading to the
2020 census, as the average population of congressional districts has
tripled since the last change in House size after the 1910 census.

Rob Richie

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 12:28 PM Pamela S Karlan <pkarlan at stanford.edu>
wrote:

> 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
> 650.725.4851
>
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 8:14 AM, John Tanner <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> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   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
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> 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
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Richie
President and CEO, FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240
Takoma Park, MD 20912
rr at fairvote.org  (301) 270-4616  http://www.fairvote.org
*FairVote Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/FairVoteReform>*   *FairVote
Twitter <https://twitter.com/fairvote>*   My Twitter
<https://twitter.com/rob_richie>

Thank you for considering a *donation
<http://www.fairvote.org/donate>. Enjoy our video on ranked choice voting
<https://youtu.be/CIz_nzP-W_c>!*
(Note: Our Combined Federal Campaign number is 10132.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20181105/71bab276/attachment.html>