Apportionment Act: Constitutional Or Unconstitutional?

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, also known as the Reapportionment Act of 1929, is a US law that fixes the number of seats in the House of Representatives at 435. The Act was passed to address the challenges of reapportioning the House after each federal census and the resulting battles between rural and urban factions. While the Act provides a permanent solution to these issues, some have questioned its constitutionality and argued for its repeal or amendment, especially given the significant population growth since its enactment.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law: Cases, Comments, and Questions (American Casebook Series)

$300

The U.S. Constitution And Fascinating Facts About It

$4.91 $4.95

Public Law

$41.79 $54.99

The Unusual Story of the Pocket Veto Case, 1926-1929 (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$24.99 $29.99

The reform of legal procedure. By: Moorfield Storey(March 19, 1845 – October 24, 1929): Law reform, Procedure (Law) -- United States

$7.99

Making the Modern American Fiscal State: Law, Politics, and the Rise of Progressive Taxation, 1877–1929 (Cambridge Historical Studies in American Law and Society)

$37.05 $42

The Act's constitutionality was questioned by some

The constitutionality of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, also known as the Reapportionment Act of 1929, was indeed questioned by some. The Act fixed the number of Representatives at 435, establishing a permanent method for apportioning seats in the U.S. House of Representatives according to each census.

The Act was signed into law on June 18, 1929, following a battle between rural and urban factions that caused the House to fail to reapportion itself after the 1920 Census. The Act capped House membership at the level set after the 1910 Census and created a procedure for automatic reapportionment after each decennial census. This procedure was intended to address the vagueness of the U.S. Constitution, which called for at least one Representative per state and no more than one for every 30,000 persons, leaving questions about future Congress sizes and reapportionment methods unanswered.

Opponents of the Act, such as William B. Bankhead of Alabama, doubted its constitutionality. Bankhead described the Act as an "abdication and surrender of the vital fundamental powers vested in the Congress of the United States by the Constitution itself." He and other critics argued that the Act infringed on Congress's powers and failed to adequately address the changing needs of a growing nation.

The Act's constitutionality was further questioned as the population grew and the average size of congressional districts tripled, resulting in underrepresentation. By 2020, each Representative served over 700,000 constituents, leading some to argue that the number of Representatives should be closer to 1,000 to ensure more proportional representation.

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 is not a constitutional requirement and can be repealed or amended with a simple vote. Despite this, it has remained in place, except for a temporary increase to 437 members when Alaska and Hawaii joined the Union in 1959.

The Act was preceded by the 1911 Apportionment Act

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 was indeed preceded by the Apportionment Act of 1911. The 1911 Act raised the membership of the U.S. House to 433, with provisions to add two more members when New Mexico and Arizona became states, bringing the total to 435 in 1912.

The 1911 Act was passed in the context of a growing House of Representatives. Since the 1790s, the number of seats in the House had been increased following each census. By 1911, the adjusted membership had grown to 435. The 1911 Act also returned to the Webster method of apportionment, which was used following the 1910 and 1930 censuses.

The 1911 Act was significant because it established the size of the House at 435 seats, a number that was later capped by the 1929 Act. The 1929 Act, also known as the Reapportionment Act, established a permanent method for apportioning these 435 seats in the House according to each census. It is worth noting that the 1929 Act neither repealed nor restated the requirements of previous apportionment acts for congressional districts to be contiguous, compact, and equally populated.

The 1929 Act was a response to the failure of Congress to reapportion the House following the 1920 Census. This failure to reapportion resulted in vast representational inequity by 1929, as the last reapportionment had been made in 1911. The 1929 Act took effect after the 1932 election, meaning that the House was never reapportioned based on the 1920 Census, and representation in the lower chamber remained frozen for twenty years.

The Act was a result of debate and gridlock

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, also known as the Reapportionment Act of 1929, was a result of nearly a decade of debate and gridlock following the 1920 Census. The Act capped the number of representatives at 435, the size previously established by the Apportionment Act of 1911.

The debate surrounding apportionment in the House of Representatives has a long history. In the 1790s, through the early 19th century, the seats were apportioned among the states using Jefferson's method. In 1842, the Apportionment Act reduced the number of House members and required single-member district elections. This sparked a debate on apportionment, with 59 different motions to fix a divisor proposed in one day. From 1842 through the 1860s, the House expanded minimally with each census and the admission of new states to the union.

The Fourteenth Amendment significantly impacted apportionment by fully counting the black population in the Southern states, resulting in a major increase in seats for these states. This led to a 21% increase in the number of seats in the House following the 1870 census to maintain the same number of seats for the northern states.

Following the 1920 Census, a battle erupted between rural and urban factions, causing the House to fail to reapportion itself for the first time in its history. This led to the passage of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, which capped the number of representatives and established a procedure for automatic reapportionment after each decennial census.

The Act has been criticised for capping the number of representatives, with some arguing that expanding the House of Representatives could offer several benefits and make gerrymandering more difficult. There have been calls for its repeal or amendment, especially as the population has tripled since 1929, and the number of representatives has remained constant.

Explore related products

Events of 1929: news for every day of the year

$8.99

Reports of the Division of Water Resources. Bulletin No. 18. California Irrigation District Laws, 1929 Revision

$18.45

La jurisprudence administrative, 1892-1929. Tome 3 (French Edition)

$45.95

Mississippi Law Journal, 1929-1930, Vol. 2: Table of Contents and Index for Volumes 1 and 2 (Classic Reprint)

$37.27 $37.72

Law School [Bulletin]; 1929-30

$13.95

Labor law at Morrison & Foerster, 1929-1971

$18.95

The Act was amended in 1941

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, also known as the Reapportionment Act of 1929, capped the number of Representatives at 435. The Act was signed into law on June 18, 1929, and took effect after the 1932 election, meaning that the House was never reapportioned as a result of the 1920 US Census. This caused representation in the lower chamber to remain frozen for twenty years.

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 was preceded by the Apportionment Act of 1911, which established the 435-seat size. The Act was enacted following nearly a decade of debate and gridlock after the 1920 Census. The Act created a procedure for automatically reapportioning House seats after every decennial census. The US Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that there be no more than one for every 30,000 persons.

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 has been questioned in terms of its constitutionality. Opponents, such as William B. Bankhead of Alabama, doubted the Act's constitutionality, describing it as "the abdication and surrender of the vital fundamental powers vested in the Congress of the United States by the Constitution itself."

The Act has been deemed unconstitutional by some

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, also known as the Reapportionment Act of 1929, fixed the number of Representatives at 435. This number was first established by the Apportionment Act of 1911. The Act was passed to address the battle between rural and urban factions, which caused the House to fail to reapportion itself following the 1920 Census.

Additionally, the Act has been criticised for not requiring congressional districts to be contiguous, compact, and equally populated, as was required by previous apportionment acts. This has resulted in gerrymandering and a potential dilution of voting power for certain groups.

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 is not part of any constitutional requirement and can be repealed or amended with a simple vote. Some have argued that expanding the House of Representatives could offer several benefits, including making gerrymandering more difficult and improving the ratio of representatives to constituents.

Frequently asked questions