Sec. 2. Findings

512 words·~2 min read·/bill/116/s/1972/is/section-2

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Congress finds the following: Democracy in the United States is rooted in the notion of actual representation and a rejection of the earlier British concept of virtual representation. In 1776, in Thoughts on Government, John Adams wrote that a legislative assembly “should be in miniature, an exact portrait of the people at large.”. Thomas Paine argued in Common Sense that a legislature should act “in the same manner as the whole body [of the people] would [act] were they present.”.

At the Constitutional Convention, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed. Federalist James Wilson declared, for example, that the new House of Representatives “ought to be the most exact transcript of the whole Society”, while his counterpart George Mason argued that the “requisites in actual representation are that the Reps. should sympathize with their constituents; shd. think as they think, & feel as they feel.”. The Supreme Court made clear in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), that the objective of redistricting is to achieve fair and effective representation for all , that legislatures should be bodies which are collectively responsive to the popular will , and that the Constitution guarantees the opportunity for equal participation by all voters .

Partisan gerrymandering is incompatible with democratic principles at the foundation of the Republic. The drawing of electoral districts to benefit or disadvantage certain political parties denies people fair, effective, and accountable representation by allowing representatives to choose their voters rather than voters to choose their representatives. In Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), the Supreme Court explained that it has “repeatedly stated that districting that would ‘operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial or political elements of the voting population’ would raise a constitutional question”.

The Constitution of the United States empowers Congress to ensure that congressional districting promotes fair, effective, and accountable representation for all people, as demonstrated in— article I, section 2, clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States; article I, section 4, clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States; article I, section 5, clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States; section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

In Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), the Supreme Court recognized that the Framers provided a remedy for partisan gerrymandering in the Constitution through the power bestowed on Congress to regulate elections, and … to restrain the practice of political gerrymandering. . This power has not lain dormant, as Congress has repeatedly exercised its authority under article I, section 4 to regulate congressional districting criteria when Congress passed the Apportionment Act of 1842 (5 Stat. 491), the Apportionment Act of 1862 (12 Stat. 572), the Apportionment Act of 1872 (17 Stat. 28), the Apportionment Act of 1901 (31 Stat. 733), the Apportionment Act of 1911 (37 Stat. 13), the Apportionment Act of 1941 (55 Stat. 761), and the 1967 amendment to the Apportionment Act of 1929 ( Public Law 90–196 ).

Connectionstraces to 5

Traces to 5 documents

statutes-at-large

5 references not yet in our index