[EL] Shrinking legislatures

Thu May 16 16:03:49 PDT 2019

Hi Douglas,

Regarding the NM House (66 seats went to 77 seats after the 1964
election, then went to 70 seats with the 1966 election).  Baker
happened, and the NM legislature knew in early 1966 that the maps they
drew for the state house and senate would likely be thrown out, and
the state senate map was thrown out by the courts (see Hardy, Heslop &
Anderson 1980, Reapportionment Politics.  Padilla's chapter on NM.  FN
52 is the citation for the case, but is missing from the bib.).  The
house map was redrawn by combining a few low population districts,
thus resulting in 77 seats going to 70 seats.

Page 225

"The committee recommended a substitute bill
which provided for reducing the size of the House to 70 members by combining the
12 smallest counties into five multicounty districts. The
apportionment among the
other counties remained the same, as did the districting within
multiseat counties."

Many of the other big changes in seats happened post-Baker if you look
at the list I sent.

Interesting side note: the NM state senate was the last state
legislature to have six year terms, which ended with the 1972 session.

Carl

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 6:31 PM Carl Klarner <carl.klarner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here's 198.  Most are trivial changes, and some of the big ones have
> already been mentioned.
>
> This would be all of such changes in state legislatures from around
> 1937 to present.
>
> syear=session year, usually subtract one for the prior election year.
>
> state cham syear seats seatslagged chg
> Alabama h 1975 105 106 -1
> Alaska h 1959 40 24 16
> Alaska s 1959 20 16 4
> Arizona h 1939 52 51 1
> Arizona h 1941 53 52 1
> Arizona h 1943 58 53 5
> Arizona h 1949 59 58 1
> Arizona h 1951 71 59 12
> Arizona h 1953 80 71 9
> Arizona h 1967 60 80 -20
> Arizona s 1955 28 19 9
> Arizona s 1967 30 28 2
> California h 1947 81 80 1
> California h 1949 80 81 -1
> Connecticut h 1941 272 267 5
> Connecticut h 1951 277 272 5
> Connecticut h 1953 279 277 2
> Connecticut h 1955 280 279 1
> Connecticut h 1961 296 280 16
> Connecticut h 1965 294 296 -2
> Connecticut h 1967 177 294 -117
> Connecticut h 1973 151 177 -26
> Connecticut s 1943 36 35 1
> Delaware h 1969 39 35 4
> Delaware h 1973 41 39 2
> Delaware s 1965 18 17 1
> Delaware s 1969 19 18 1
> Delaware s 1973 21 19 2
> Florida h 1963 124 95 29
> Florida h 1965 112 124 -12
> Florida h 1967 119 112 7
> Florida h 1973 120 119 1
> Florida s 1963 45 38 7
> Florida s 1965 44 45 -1
> Florida s 1967 48 44 4
> Florida s 1973 40 48 -8
> Georgia h 1969 195 205 -10
> Georgia h 1973 180 195 -15
> Georgia s 1939 52 51 1
> Georgia s 1947 54 52 2
> Georgia s 1969 56 54 2
> Hawaii h 1959 51 30 21
> Hawaii s 1959 25 15 10
> Idaho h 1963 63 59 4
> Idaho h 1965 79 63 16
> Idaho h 1967 70 79 -9
> Idaho h 1985 84 70 14
> Idaho h 1993 70 84 -14
> Idaho s 1967 35 44 -9
> Idaho s 1985 42 35 7
> Idaho s 1993 35 42 -7
> Illinois h 1957 177 153 24
> Illinois h 1983 118 177 -59
> Illinois s 1957 58 51 7
> Illinois s 1973 59 58 1
> Iowa h 1965 124 108 16
> Iowa h 1971 100 124 -24
> Iowa s 1965 59 50 9
> Iowa s 1967 61 59 2
> Iowa s 1971 50 61 -11
> Louisiana h 1964 105 101 4
> Maine s 1963 34 33 1
> Maine s 1969 32 34 -2
> Maine s 1973 33 32 1
> Maine s 1985 35 33 2
> Maryland h 1943 123 120 3
> Maryland h 1963 142 123 19
> Maryland h 1975 141 142 -1
> Maryland s 1967 43 29 14
> Maryland s 1975 47 43 4
> Massachusetts h 1979 160 240 -80
> Michigan h 1955 110 100 10
> Michigan s 1955 34 32 2
> Michigan s 1965 38 34 4
> Minnesota h 1961 135 131 4
> Minnesota h 1973 134 135 -1
> Mississippi h 1964 122 140 -18
> Mississippi s 1964 52 49 3
> Missouri h 1947 154 150 4
> Missouri h 1953 157 154 3
> Missouri h 1963 163 157 6
> Montana h 1943 90 102 -12
> Montana h 1953 94 90 4
> Montana h 1967 104 94 10
> Montana h 1973 100 104 -4
> Montana s 1967 55 56 -1
> Montana s 1973 50 55 -5
> Nebraska s 1965 49 43 6
> Nevada h 1947 41 40 1
> Nevada h 1949 43 41 2
> Nevada h 1953 47 43 4
> Nevada h 1963 37 47 -10
> Nevada h 1967 40 37 3
> Nevada h 1983 42 40 2
> Nevada s 1967 20 17 3
> Nevada s 1983 21 20 1
> New Hampshire h 1939 427 418 9
> New Hampshire h 1941 423 427 -4
> New Hampshire h 1943 443 423 20
> New Hampshire h 1945 400 443 -43
> New Hampshire h 1949 399 400 -1
> New Hampshire h 1957 397 399 -2
> New Hampshire h 1959 400 397 3
> New Jersey h 1968 80 60 20
> New Jersey s 1966 29 21 8
> New Jersey s 1968 40 29 11
> New Mexico h 1951 55 49 6
> New Mexico h 1957 66 55 11
> New Mexico h 1965 77 66 11
> New Mexico h 1967 70 77 -7
> New Mexico s 1953 31 24 7
> New Mexico s 1957 32 31 1
> New Mexico s 1967 42 32 10
> New York h 1966 165 150 15
> New York h 1967 150 165 -15
> New York s 1945 56 51 5
> New York s 1955 58 56 2
> New York s 1966 65 58 7
> New York s 1967 57 65 -8
> New York s 1973 60 57 3
> New York s 1983 61 60 1
> New York s 2003 62 61 1
> New York s 2013 63 62 1
> North Dakota h 1955 116 113 3
> North Dakota h 1957 113 116 -3
> North Dakota h 1965 109 113 -4
> North Dakota h 1967 98 109 -11
> North Dakota h 1973 102 98 4
> North Dakota h 1977 100 102 -2
> North Dakota h 1983 106 100 6
> North Dakota h 1993 98 106 -8
> North Dakota h 2003 94 98 -4
> North Dakota s 1973 51 49 2
> North Dakota s 1977 50 51 -1
> North Dakota s 1983 53 50 3
> North Dakota s 1993 49 53 -4
> North Dakota s 2003 47 49 -2
> Ohio h 1939 136 138 -2
> Ohio h 1941 138 136 2
> Ohio h 1943 136 138 -2
> Ohio h 1947 139 136 3
> Ohio h 1949 135 139 -4
> Ohio h 1953 136 135 1
> Ohio h 1957 139 136 3
> Ohio h 1963 137 139 -2
> Ohio h 1967 99 137 -38
> Ohio s 1939 35 36 -1
> Ohio s 1941 36 35 1
> Ohio s 1943 33 36 -3
> Ohio s 1947 36 33 3
> Ohio s 1949 33 36 -3
> Ohio s 1957 34 33 1
> Ohio s 1959 33 34 -1
> Ohio s 1961 38 33 5
> Ohio s 1963 33 38 -5
> Ohio s 1965 32 33 -1
> Ohio s 1967 33 32 1
> Oklahoma h 1953 121 118 3
> Oklahoma h 1959 119 121 -2
> Oklahoma h 1961 121 119 2
> Oklahoma h 1963 120 121 -1
> Oklahoma h 1965 99 120 -21
> Oklahoma h 1973 101 99 2
> Oklahoma s 1965 48 44 4
> Pennsylvania h 1955 210 208 2
> Pennsylvania h 1965 209 210 -1
> Pennsylvania h 1967 203 209 -6
> Rhode Island h 2003 75 100 -25
> Rhode Island s 1939 44 42 2
> Rhode Island s 1963 46 44 2
> Rhode Island s 1967 50 46 4
> Rhode Island s 2003 38 50 -12
> South Carolina s 1967 50 46 4
> South Carolina s 1969 46 50 -4
> South Dakota h 1939 75 103 -28
> South Dakota h 1973 70 75 -5
> South Dakota s 1939 35 45 -10
> Utah h 1957 64 60 4
> Utah h 1965 69 64 5
> Utah h 1973 75 69 6
> Utah s 1957 25 23 2
> Utah s 1965 27 25 2
> Utah s 1967 28 27 1
> Utah s 1973 29 28 1
> Vermont h 1939 246 248 -2
> Vermont h 1966 150 246 -96
> Washington h 1973 98 99 -1
> Washington s 1959 49 46 3
> West Virginia h 1953 100 94 6
> West Virginia s 1939 32 30 2
> West Virginia s 1965 34 32 2
> Wisconsin h 1973 99 100 -1
> Wyoming h 1965 61 56 5
> Wyoming h 1973 62 61 1
> Wyoming h 1983 64 62 2
> Wyoming h 1993 60 64 -4
> Wyoming s 1965 25 27 -2
> Wyoming s 1967 30 25 5
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 4:37 PM Douglas Carver <dhmcarver at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The New Mexico Legislature has varied in size since its inception, starting with 49 House members and 24 in the Senate in 1912, to the present 70 House and 42 Senate. Generally it has been a slow increase over the years, but looking at a chart of number of members by Session, the 26th Session (1963-1964) had 66 House members, the 27th (1965-1966) had 77, and the 28th (1967-1968) dropped to the now-current 70. I have not been able to find anything that documents why the numbers have varied over the years, but since the number of members is set in the state Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 3), presumably the Constitution was amended each time the numbers changed..
> >
> > Douglas Carver
> > Albuquerque, NM
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 1:36 PM Gaddie, Ronald K. <rkgaddie at ou.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Georgia went from 205 House, 54 senate in the 1962 county-apportionment legislature, to 180 House, 56 Senate at some point before the mid 1970s. I'm tracking down the precise change date.
> >>
> >>
> >> Keith Gaddie, Ph.D.
> >> Executive Faculty Fellow of the University of Oklahoma
> >> Senior Fellow of Headington College
> >> President's Associates Presidential Professor of
> >>   Political Science, Journalism, & Architecture
> >>
> >> "I would like to build a University of which the football team could be proud." ~George Lynn Cross
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Zach West <zachwest1 at gmail.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 2:16 PM
> >> To: David Segal
> >> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [EL] Shrinking legislatures
> >>
> >> Ohio used to change the number of house and senate seats at each election.  Each county was guaranteed at least one seat, regardless of population size, and additional seats were given to counties with unusually large populations.  They usually had around ~130-140 representatives, and ~30-35 senators.  Post Reynolds v. Sims, Ohio adopted the current size of 99 state reps and 33 state senators.
> >>
> >> Gongwer has a chart showing the size of each session.  http://www.gongwer-oh.com/public/gahis.html
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 2:57 PM David Segal <davidadamsegal at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> We went from 100 -> 75 in the RI House and 50 -> 38 in the Senate in 2002. Constitutional amendment, put on the ballot by the legislature.
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 2:55 PM David O'Brien <dobrien at fairvote.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Nebraska shrunk the size of its legislature when it voted to switch to a unicameral system in 1934. Prior to that referendum, it had a Senate with 33 members and a House of Representatives with 100 members. Today it only has a 49-member Senate.
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 2:42 PM Edelman, Paul <paul.edelman at law.vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am in search of examples of legislative bodies that have shrunk, either of their own volition or by order of some superior entity.   They seem to be as uncommon as shrinking university administrations.  Does anyone have any examples?  Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Paul H. Edelman
> >>
> >> Professor of Mathematics and Law
> >>
> >> Vanderbilt University
> >>
> >> paul.edelman at vanderbilt.edu
> >>
> >> 615-322-0990
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Law-election mailing list
> >> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> >> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> David O'Brien
> >> Staff Attorney, FairVote
> >> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240
> >> Takoma Park, MD 20912
> >> O: (301) 270-4616
> >> www.fairvote.org
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dilexi iustitiam et odivi iniquitatem, propterea morior in exilio.
> >
> > (I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile.)
> >
> >     -- the last words of Saint Pope Gregory VII (d. 1085)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> > https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Carl Klarner
> Klarnerpolitics.org
> Former Associate Professor of Political Science
> Academic & Consultant
> Carl.Klarner at gmail.com
> Cell: 812-514-9060

-- 
Dr. Carl Klarner
Klarnerpolitics.org
Former Associate Professor of Political Science
Academic & Consultant
Carl.Klarner at gmail.com
Cell: 812-514-9060