Dear Tom,

Two comments about the email below:

Firstly I note that you include the Western Australian upper house as a =
house with single-vacancy elections, which is I think not the case as =
they have multi-member districts with PR polls.

Secondly there appears to be concern by writers below that the wording =
in the US Constitution stating that senators for a State shall be =
elected by the people of the State precludes the State being divided =
into electoral districts for the purpose of electing senators. However =
Article 1 Section 2 of the US Constitution states that "The House of =
Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by =
the people of the several States, ... " and that similar wording has =
never prevented the MHRs being elected from electoral districts in each =
State known as "congressional districts".=20

If it is good enough for the lower house, it is hard for me to see why =
similar wording in Amendment 17 does not also allow electoral districts =
within a State for Senate elections. Article 1 Section 4 appears to =
specify who would decide how such districts would be determined.

Regards,


Geoffrey Goode
Tel. 0429176725



  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Tom Round=20
  To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu=20
  Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 1:23 PM
  Subject: Re: electing US senators from two equipopulous districts?=20


  May be of interest for comparativist types...

  Electing Senators from sub-State districts, instead of Statewide, has =
been proposed for Australia as well. Our Constitution specifically =
permits it,[1] and with more than two (originally 6, then 10, currently =
12) Senators per State, it would be possible to have districting without =
requiring each State to sit out all but one Senate election every six =
years.

  One of the various reasons why this Constitutional option has never =
been pursued, though, is that single-member Senatorial districts would =
not necessary coincide with single-member House of Representatives =
districts. For example, my State of New South Wales has 51 Reps seats. =
Dividing the populace into six Senate districts would require either =
cutting across the boundaries of Reps districts (undesirable for the =
administrative inconvenience), [2] or else grouping unequal numbers of =
equipopulous Reps districts (ie, each NSW Senator would cover an =
electorate formed by combining 4 or 5 lower house districts, creating a =
disparity of up to 1.52777...(recurring) [3] between the smallest and =
largest voter populations within the same State -- exacerbating the =
existing population inequality among States, since the lag rest State =
has twelve times the population of the smallest).

  Although the Australian Constitution does not explicitly require, and =
has been held by the High Court not to impliedly require, equipopulous =
electoral districts, the principle has been enshrined in federal =
legislation since 1976, with a maximum variation of 10% from the =
average; abandoning this would be as politically unthinkable as, say, =
Congress repealing the Voting Rights Act.

  In the US, this would only be a problem in those States with an odd =
number of Congressreps greater than two -- ie, there would be little =
problem dividing a State that elects one Rep at large, but halving one =
of 3, 5, 7, 9 (etc) districts would be more contentious, I would assume.

  Regards,
  Tom

  [1]     The Federal Parliament can divide States into Senate districts =
at any time. The Constitution allowed the Parliament of Queensland (as a =
sop to separatist sentiment at the time of Federation) to divide that =
State into Senate districts, but only until Federal Parliament =
"otherwise provide[d]" -- which the latter did in the 1980s, thus =
closing the loophole.

  [2]     As far as I know, whenever Australian States' upper houses =
have been elected from single-seat districts (down now to only two =
States, Tasmania and Western Australia -- Victoria and South Australia =
used to, but switched to Statewide proportional representation in 2003 =
and 1973 respectively), upper house districts were formed by aggregating =
whole lower house districts, which I believe is the US practice as well =
for State Senates.

  [3]     With a permissible variation between 0.9 and 1.1 times the =
average for Reps districts, this could mean a minimum of 3.6 times the =
average for a four-district Senatorial electorate, and a maximum of 5.5 =
times the average for a five-district Senatorial electorate.

  At 13:45 29/11/2004 -0500, Jeffrey C O'Neill wrote:


    There is an article on this issue: Terry Smith, Rediscovering the =
Sovereignty of the People: The Case for Senate Districts, 75 N.C. L. =
Rev. 1 (1996).

    Jeff

    > I received an e-mail pointing me to this "Wikipedia" entry:
    > =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Congress#Elections_Schedu=
le_for_US_Senate
    > which states that U.S. Senators could be elected in each state =
from two
    > districts of equal population. (The Wikipedia is a kind of public
    > encyclopedia in which anyone can edit and enter information.)
    > The 17th Amendment provides that "The Senate of the United States =
shall
    > be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people
    > thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."  =
Does
    > anyone know if the language "elected by the people thereof" has =
been
    > interpreted to preclude election of senators of a state from two =
equally
    > populated districts?
    > Rick
    >