Election Policy Fundamentals: At-Large House Districts

Election Policy Fundamentals: At-Large House Districts

January 12, 2024
Election Policy Fundamentals: At-Large House Districts
An at-large district for the U.S House of Representatives is
At-large districts were generally used in one of two
a district that represents the entirety of a state, rather than a
scenarios if used by states with multiple House seats: (1) all
specifically drawn subsection of it. Under Article 1, Section
multimember at-large districts, with members elected in
2, of the U.S. Constitution (as amended by Section 2 of the
general ticket elections, and (2) a combination of at-large
Fourteenth Amendment), the total number of
district(s) with geographic districts.
Representatives is divided (or apportioned) among the
states following the decennial census according to states’
Historical Multimember At-Large Districts
respective populations, and each state is required to receive
On some occasions, various states elected their Members of
at least one House seat. Under the Elections Clause of the
the House of Representatives through general ticket
Constitution (Article I, Section 4), states are primarily
elections, or the process of electing a state’s entire
responsible for the “Times, Places and Manner” of their
delegation at large. In these scenarios, a voter could vote for
congressional elections, subject to regulation by Congress.
as many candidates as there were seats for the state’s House
Historically, every state with the exception of Wisconsin
delegation. This sometimes occurred when a state was
has, at some point, elected a member of the House at large.
newly admitted to the Union, or when a state delegation
was reduced in a new apportionment law and the state
Due to the apportionment of congressional districts
legislature was unable to draw a new district map in a
following the 2020 census, six states are to be represented
timely manner. General ticket elections were also
by a single at-large district in the House in the 118th-122nd
sometimes used by a state’s dominant political party to try
Congresses (2023-2033): Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota,
to ensure that the state’s House delegation was from the
South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. This In Focus
same party. The Office of the House Historian notes that in
primarily provides information about the historical use of
a general ticket election, voters would often select a slate of
at-large districts by states for congressional representation,
candidates from a single party, resulting almost uniformly
and current federal policy affecting their use.
in single-party House delegations from states that held
Historical Uses of At-Large Districts
general ticket elections.
Today, states with multiple House seats operate under an
Congress banned general ticket elections in the
electoral system utilizing single-member congressional
apportionment act of 1842, which provided that
districts, in which each Member represents a distinct and
Representatives “shall be elected by districts composed of
geographically defined area, smaller than the state itself,
contiguous territory equal in number to the number of
and is elected only by voters who reside within that
Representatives to which said State may be entitled, no one
district’s boundaries. Under the 1967 Uniform
district electing more than one Representative.” The use of
Congressional District Act (P.L. 90-196, 2 U.S.C. §2c), at-
general ticket elections continued, however, after several
large districts can only be used by states with a small
states declined to abide by the ban and the new House
enough population to have been apportioned a single House
majority seated their delegations regardless.
seat. For more on these topics, see CRS In Focus IF12567,
Election Policy Fundamentals: Single-Member House
Many subsequent apportionment laws contained similar
Districts.
language prohibiting general ticket elections and at-large
districts in states with multiple House seats, with limited
Historically states sometimes used at-large districts in other
exceptions, until they were explicitly disallowed in 1967 by
ways to provide for congressional representation. Prior to
the Uniform Congressional District Act. By then, the
1967, some states with multiple House seats, at times, used
general ticket was only in use in New Mexico and Hawaii,
at-large districts. In the 1st Congress (1789-1791), for
states which had never drawn congressional districts despite
example, 7 of the 11 states with multiple House seats
being apportioned multiple seats. The law permitted both
divided representatives into geographic districts, and 4
states to continue their practice for one subsequent
states elected their representatives at-large (Connecticut,
Congress, and Hawaii did. The House in the 92nd Congress
New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania). In
(1971-1973) was the first to be elected entirely from
addition, there was also a system used briefly by Georgia
districts for states apportioned more than one member.
and Maryland in the 1700s whereby candidates ran in a
specific district, but were elected by the entire state
Historical Combinations of Geographic with At-
electorate, who could vote for a candidate in each of the
Large Districts
state’s districts. The high-water mark of at-large
Some states combined geographic districts with at-large
representation was the 16th Congress, which seated 41
districts in the 33rd-89th Congresses (1853-1967), according
members elected at large.
to political geographer Kenneth C. Martis. These at-large
districts were often used when a state had been apportioned
additional House seats, but the state legislature could not or
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Election Policy Fundamentals: At-Large House Districts
chose not to convene in a timely manner to create
at-large congressional districts once enabled the use of
congressional districts or could not agree on a redistricting
general ticket voting in some U.S. states prior to 1842.
proposal. On other occasions, a state legislature
Some legislative proposals in recent Congresses have
affirmatively created an at-large district in addition to a
included provisions related to at-large districts, typically in
number of geographic districts. Some legislatures, drawing
addition to other election system changes.
districts prior to an apportionment, based their maps on a
predicted apportionment, and specified that if the state was
Historically, the use of at-large congressional districts in
apportioned more seats than predicted, then the additional
states with multiple House seats sometimes enabled states
representative would be elected at-large.
to avoid engaging in redistricting following a decennial
census, as it was unnecessary to make further geographical
The 43rd Congress (1873-1875) was the first with a
subdivisions within the state. Prior to the 1960s, if a state
substantial number of at-large districts combined with
lost a seat in an apportionment, for example, the state
geographically drawn districts, with 14 such at-large
legislature could opt to use all at-large congressional
districts in nine states. This was because the apportionment
districts instead of making potentially sensitive political
law of 1872 expanded the size of the House by more than
decisions that might result in an incumbent losing their seat.
20% and explicitly permitted the use of such at-large
If a state gained a seat, similar considerations could lead
districts in states where additional seats were apportioned.
states to elect the new seat at-large and allow incumbents to
This use was intended to be temporary, for the 43rd
retain their existing districts. Such scenarios are currently
Congress only (and eight of the states that used such at-
prohibited by the Uniform Congressional District Act, and
large districts redistricted by the next Congress).
may also be limited by current federal redistricting
Subsequent apportionment laws contained similar language
standards regarding population equality, as discussed in
specifying that if a state gained additional House seats
CRS In Focus IF12250, Congressional Redistricting: Key
following an apportionment, those “Representatives shall
Legal and Policy Issues.
be elected … at large” until a state redrew its districts.
Although some may view certain contemporary
Similarly, the 63rd Congress (1913-1915) had 21 at-large
redistricting as political or partisan in nature, historical
members across 12 states that also had geographic districts,
evidence also indicates that at-large districts were similarly
resulting from new apportionments in the 1911
subject to criticism. A dominant political party in state
apportionment law. Some states also implemented a
government, for example, might favor general ticket
combination of at-large and geographic districts in the
elections, under the presumption that the statewide majority
aftermath of Supreme Court case Wood v. Broom (1932),
that had elected the party to state leadership would similarly
which decided that districting regulations in apportionment
send a unified party delegation to Congress.
laws did not carry over into subsequent apportionments; the
apportionment act of 1929 (P.L. 71-13), which did not have
More broadly speaking, House district size—whether a
any districting regulations, thus allowed different districting
district is a subset of a state’s geography or comprises the
scenarios to proliferate. The 1941 amendment (P.L. 77-291)
entirety of it—can have a range of implications for
only allowed the use of at-large districts combined with
congressional representation; campaigns and elections; and
geographically drawn districts if the state had not yet
House operations. Larger, or at-large House districts,
redistricted after reapportionment; the 1967 Uniform
would, notably, affect the representation ratio, or number
Congressional District Act banned their use entirely.
of constituents per Representative, for many in the House.

If states with multiple House seats were permitted to adopt
States with One House Seat
at-large districts, each of those Members would represent a
In every Congress, there has been at least one state
larger number of constituents, potentially reflecting the full
apportioned a single House seat. States with a single House
state’s population, as U.S. Senators do. This, along with the
seat elect a Representative at large, and this is the only
larger geographic area served by Members, could have
scenario in which states can currently use an at-large
implications for resource allocations, both for candidates
congressional district. Since the 92nd Congress (1971-1973),
running for the House and for the Members serving in it.
eight states have used an at-large district. These are Alaska
Political campaigns for larger or at-large districts in House
(86th Congress-present), Delaware (18th Congress-present),
elections, for example, might require more field offices,
Montana (103rd-117th Congresses), Nevada (38th-97th
staff, and materials, or advertisements run in several media
Congresses), North Dakota (93rd Congress-present), South
markets across an entire state. Once in office,
Dakota (98th Congress-present), Vermont (73rd Congress-
representational duties associated with serving larger or at-
present), and Wyoming (51st Congress-present). Nonvoting
large districts might similarly affect how a Member would
representatives from the U.S. territories and the District of
allocate office resources and time, or how the House would
Columbia are also elected at large.
choose to fund and regulate expenditures for all Members’
Contemporary Considerations
offices under the Members’ Representational Allowance.
Features of the U.S. electoral system have various
implications for representational democracy and are of
Sarah J. Eckman, Analyst in American National
ongoing interest to Congress. Choices made about certain
Government
electoral features, including those related to the
Tyler L. Wolanin, Research Assistant
establishment and nature of congressional districts, are
IF12568
often related to, or can affect, other electoral system
features. As discussed earlier in this product, for example,
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Election Policy Fundamentals: At-Large 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 | IF12568 · VERSION 1 · NEW