Election Policy Fundamentals: Single-Member House Districts

Election Policy Fundamentals: Single-Member House Districts

January 12, 2024
Election Policy Fundamentals: Single-Member House Districts
A single-member district refers to an electoral district
as multimember districts and general ticket elections, had
represented by one legislative representative. Members of
often provided uniform Democratic Party control of several
the U.S. House of Representatives have been elected
state congressional delegations. The act specified that
exclusively from single-member districts since the 92nd
Representatives from states apportioned multiple seats
Congress (1971-1973), when legislation mandating their
use came into effect (P.L. 90-196; 2 U.S.C. §2c). In prior
shall be elected by districts composed of contiguous
sessions, some Members were elected from multimember
territory equal in number to the number of
districts (also referred to as plural districts), which are
Representatives to which said State may be entitled,
geographically defined districts electing more than one
no
one district
electing
more
than one
representative; or in general ticket elections, whereby a
Representative.
state elected all of its representatives at large without
geographically defined districts (see IFyyyyyy, Election
The use of general ticket elections, however, continued in
Fundamentals: At-Large House Districts). This In Focus
practice after 1842; four states elected their delegations to
provides information about the historical use of single-
the 28th Congress (1843-1845) through the general ticket
member districts and the legislative context for 2 U.S.C.
system, and the new Democratic majority seated these
§2c, as well as subsequent proposals that might provide for
delegations. In 1967, general ticket elections, and any
the use of multi-member districts.
electoral arrangement other than single-member districts,
were eliminated by P.L. 90-196, as discussed below.
Constitutional Provisions and Context
Legislative Background for 2 U.S.C. §2c
Though the Constitution itself is silent on the issue,
according to political scientist Jay K. Dow, some founders
Prior to the 20th century, Congress passed apportionment
envisioned a House of Representatives made up of
legislation intended to apply only for a single census or
Members elected from single-member districts. James
apportionment. Various apportionment acts since 1842 had
Madison, for example, made reference to representation of
imposed certain conditions on congressional districts (e.g.,
specific geographic constituencies in Federalist Papers 56
that they be geographically compact, be contiguous, or have
and 57, and Alexander Hamilton and George Mason also
equal populations; see CRS Insight IN11618,
referenced such districts at the New York ratifying
Congressional Redistricting Criteria and Considerations).
convention and the Constitutional Convention, respectively.
Some of these decennial laws included similar language to
the 1842 apportionment act; others did not.
Under the Constitution (Article 1, Section 2, as amended by
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment), Congress
The apportionment act of 1911 contained language similar
apportions House seats across states by population after
to the 1842 act, specifying that any state with multiple
every decennial census. Article 1, Section 2 also—without
House seats would have a number of districts equal to its
directly mentioning House districts—implies a minimum
number of Representatives, and each district would elect no
district size with its requirement that there can be no more
more than one Representative. The 1911 act also specified
than one Representative for every 30,000 persons (provided
that those districts should be compact, contiguous, and with
that each state receives at least one Representative).
equal populations.
Congress also holds the authority to alter state regulations
pertaining to “The Times, Places and Manner” of House
The apportionment act of 1929, however, imposed no such
elections.
districting language, enabling the use of general ticket
elections and at-large districts alongside geographic single-
House Districts in Early Congresses
member districts for several apportionments starting in
During the late 1700s and early 1800s, states with multiple
1932. The 1929 act, amended by legislation in 1941,
House seats varied in whether, or how, districts were used
established a general reapportionment formula and process
in House elections. In the 1st Congress, for example, seven
that could repeat across decades. No further legislation
such states used single-member districts and four states
addressing congressional redistricting or apportionment was
elected representatives at-large. According to historian
enacted until 1967.
Rosemarie Zagarri, 31% of total House membership
between 1789 and 1842 was elected from states using
For several years beginning in the 1950s, Representative
multimember districts.
Emanuel Celler of New York introduced legislation that
would have affected congressional redistricting. Celler’s
As part of the apportionment act of 1842, the Whig-
bills would have required certain district criteria (such as
controlled Congress included language requiring states to
compact and contiguous districts with limited population
use single-member districts. Other election practices, such
variance across districts within a state). Later versions of
his bills, beginning with H.R. 8329 in the 84th Congress
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Election Policy Fundamentals: Single-Member House Districts
(1955-1957), also included provisions that would have
states using at-large districts at the time), and (2) prohibited
required the use of single-member districts for the House,
any redistricting prior to 1970 unless a special census was
with language similar to the 1842 apportionment act. These
taken to update apportionment population counts. The
redistricting bills began to receive further attention in
Senate never agreed to this version of the bill.
Congress by the mid-1960s, beginning with House passage
of H.R. 5505 in the 89th Congress.
It was in this context of legislative impasse that single-
member district proponents quickly amended a private bill,
In the late 1960s, following the passage of the Voting
H.R. 2275, An Act for the Relief of Doctor Ricardo Vallejo
Rights Act of 1965 and various Supreme Court cases
Samala, to include the Uniform Congressional District Act.
regarding population equality in congressional districts (see
This mandated single-member districts but did not address
CRS In Focus IF12250, Congressional Redistricting: Key
other aspects of redistricting, the disputes over which had
Legal and Policy Issues), some supporters of civil rights
led to the failure to pass earlier legislation. States using at-
legislation viewed a single-member district mandate as a
large districts at the time, New Mexico and Hawaii, were
related reform. Single-member districts, from their
allowed to retain these districts temporarily. The legislation
perspective, could prevent the dilution of minorities’ votes
passed a few weeks later, and was signed by President
through the use of at-large districts and general ticket
Lyndon Johnson in December 1967. It was codified as 2
elections, which were still in use in several states.
U.S.C. §2c.
Additionally, some were concerned that courts would
require the use of at-large districts in situations where a
Contemporary Considerations
state’s redistricting was not found to be in compliance with
Congress maintains an ongoing interest in features of the
“one-person, one-vote” population equality requirements.
U.S. electoral system and their implications for
representational democracy. In recent decades, legislation
Representative Celler’s redistricting legislation was
has been introduced to modify or eliminate the single-
reintroduced as H.R. 2508 in the 90th Congress (1967-1969)
member district mandate, including the Voters’ Choice Act
and received considerable attention in both chambers. Some
(H.R. 2545, 104th Congress; H.R. 3068, 105th Congress;
Members sought to provide guidance to state legislatures
H.R. 5679, 106th Congress; and H.R. 1189, 107th Congress),
regarding redistricting practices, and some sought to reduce
the States’ Choice of Voting Systems Act (H.R. 1173, 106th
the frequency of judicial involvement in congressional
Congress), and the Fair Representation Act (H.R. 3057,
redistricting. In Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) and other
115th Congress; H.R. 4000, 116th Congress, and H.R. 3863,
contemporary decisions, the Supreme Court had struck
117th Congress). Electoral system features can often be
down certain districts based on the “equality standard” or
interrelated, and this proposed change is often paired with
the principle of “one person, one vote.” Among other
other modifications, such as the allowance of proportional
provisions, some early versions of H.R. 2508 proposed
representation or ranked-choice voting. None of this
establishing permissible levels of population variance
legislation has advanced past the point of introduction.
across a state’s congressional districts.
Some states also utilize different methods for their own
Some civil rights proponents thought that the provisions in
legislative elections. Multimember districts are currently
H.R. 2508 would allow for too great a variance in district
used in the Arizona, Idaho, Maryland, New Hampshire,
size, and believed that this could lead to the dilution of
New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and
urban and minority votes. Speaking against the bill during
Washington state legislatures.
its Senate floor consideration, Senator Robert F. Kennedy
said that
Some proponents of multimember districts argue that, in
conjunction with other electoral reforms, they could allow
Court-supervised adherence to the principles of
for greater representation of minority groups who might not
equal representation all across our nation would
command the majority of the vote in a single-member
probably increase significantly the number of
district. By contrast, some supporters of single-member
congressmen who are closer to and more responsive
districts, such as Dow, argue that single-member districts
to the interests of large urban minority groups.
allow for “citizens of different backgrounds and political
Delay in achieving fair apportionment will
interests [to be] placed in the same political community and
perpetuate
this
underrepresentation....
The
have to engage these differences locally rather than
nationally,” and that single
confusion and litigation which H.R. 2508 will
-member districts advance the
representation of minority voices.
surely spawn is of far more than abstract
significance—it will cause a delay in the realization

of a constitutional right for millions of Americans.
Passed by both chambers, the bill went through two
Sarah J. Eckman, Analyst in American National
conference committees and had several provisions removed
Government
as the House and Senate attempted to reach a compromise.
Tyler L. Wolanin, Research Assistant
The House agreed to conference report provisions provided
in H.Rept. 795 on October 26, 1967, which would have (1)
IF12567
required use of single-member districts for all states (with
short-term exceptions for Hawaii and New Mexico, the two

https://crsreports.congress.gov

Election Policy Fundamentals: Single-Member House Districts

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF12567 · VERSION 1 · NEW