After the census, the P. Data were provided for states, counties, minor civil divisions, places, voting districts when specified by the state , census tracts or block numbering areas, enumeration districts or block groups, and blocks. The number of blocks identified in the census was 2.
Blocks were identified in all urbanized areas, all incorporated places of 10, or more population, and other areas for which a state or local government contracted with the Census Bureau to define block boundaries. The average population per block was estimated in the census at about 70 people, and the average population per enumeration district at about people Bureau of the Census, , 67, Voting precincts identified by the states were generally the size of an enumeration district or group of blocks.
In , the P. Although P. Over time, however, the states, on their own initiative and prodded by the courts, have come to rely almost exclusively on census data to prepare redistricting plans. In the s and s, several court cases held that a state could use other than decennial census data for congressional and other kinds of legislative districts NCSL Reapportionment Task Force, In , citing Hawaii's special military and tourist populations, the Supreme Court in Burns v.
Richardson held that the state could redistrict on the basis of numbers of registered voters. However, this decision was reached after the court determined that the results would not have been substantially different from those based on total citizen population.
In Kirkpatrick v. Preisler , the court implied that the eligible voter population could be the basis for redistricting if identified properly Page Share Cite Suggested Citation:"C Data Requirements for Reapportionment and Redistricting. In Ely v. Klahr , the court cautioned that a new plan for Arizona legislative districts could use registered voter data only if the results would not differ substantially from what would have resulted "from the use of a permissible population base.
For example, the District Court in Massachusetts upheld the use of a state census for legislative redistricting in McGovern v. Connolly However, a district court struck down a New Mexico plan that was based on number of votes cast, and, in , the District Court in Hawaii struck down Hawaii's state legislative plan that used registered voters, finding that the results did not "substantially approximate" those based on total population. In the same case Travis v.
King, , the District Court struck down Hawaii's congressional redistricting plan, also based on registered voters, as unconstitutional: "[P]ursuant to Article I, Sec. For example, in reviewing Young v. Klutznick, the appeals court , 6th Circuit held that states are not constitutionally required to use census data supplied by the Census Bureau for redistricting, but can use adjusted population figures, so long as the adjustment was thoroughly documented and systematically applied.
In City of Detroit v. Franklin , Eastern District, Michigan , the court noted that Karcher v. Daggett did not hold that states must use census figures in redistricting but rather must use "the best population data available. Mosbacher , the appeals court , 9th Circuit held that the Census Bureau was under no obligation to release adjusted data, but, if the state knew the census data were underrepresentative of the population, it could and should use noncensus data, in addition to the official count, for redistricting.
In a recent case, City of New York v. Department of Commerce , Eastern District, New York , the court found that there was a public interest in having available data tapes containing adjusted census counts down to the block level for the entire United States.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs, who had acquired these tapes from the Census Bureau as part of the court-ordered process for deciding whether to adjust the census, could make the tapes publicly available. In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason. House to and provided for an apportionment. It also provided for additional seats upon the admissions of Arizona and New Mexico as states, increasing the number to in In , Congress failed to reapportion the House membership as required by the United States Constitution.
This failure to reapportion may have been politically motivated, as the newly elected Republican majority may have feared the effect such a reapportionment would have on their future electoral prospects.
By , no reapportionment had been made since , and there was vast representational inequity, measured by the average district size. By some states had districts twice as large as others due to population growth and demographic shift.
This cap has remained unchanged since then, except for a temporary increase to members upon the admission of Alaska and Hawaii into the Union. As of May , there is approximately one representative for every , people in the country Clemons v. Department of Commerce[ edit ] Main article: Clemons v. Department of Commerce A lawsuit, Clemons v. Department of Commerce , sought a court order for Congress to increase the size of the House's voting membership and then reapportion the seats in accordance with the population figures of the Census.
The intent of the plaintiff was to rectify the disparity of congressional district population sizes among the states that result from the present method of apportionment. Upon reaching the U. Supreme Court in December , the holdings of the lower district and appellate courts were vacated and the case remanded to the U.
District Court from which the case originated with instructions that the district court dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The coal mine example. American Political Science Review — Google Scholar Mauer, George J.
Political equality and legislative apportionment in Oklahoma. Unpublished Ph. New York: Twentieth Century Fund. Google Scholar Meier, Kenneth J. Executive reorganization of government: impact on employment and expenditures,American Journal of Political Science — Google Scholar O'Rourke, Timothy The Impact of Reapportionment. Google Scholar Pulsipher, Allan G.
Malapportionment, party competition, and the functional distribution of governmental expenditures,American Political Science Review — Measuring malapportionment. Google Scholar Singleton, J. Allen In Leroy C. Hardy, Alan Heslop, and Stuart Anderson eds.
Google Scholar Uslaner, Eric M. Reapportionment, gerrymandering, and change in the partisan balance of power in the American states. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.
More precisely, this study develops a set of specifications under which we might expect varying effects of reapportionment on electoral patterns.
Download preview PDF. Unpublished Ph. An additional House member would be added each time the national population exceeds the next cube; in this case, the next House member would be added when the census population reached ,,, and the one after that at ,, Indeed, in the nineteenth century, Congress typically passed a statute at the time of each census that required all states, whether or not they gained or lost seats, to redistrict and to establish single-member districts that were contiguous, compact, and as nearly equal in population as practicable Durbin and Whitaker,
Executive reorganization of government: impact on employment and expenditures,American Journal of Political Science — Legislative constituencies: single-member districts, multimember districts, and floterial districts. An additional House member would be added each time the national population exceeds the next cube; in this case, the next House member would be added when the census population reached ,,, and the one after that at ,, However, a district court struck down a New Mexico plan that was based on number of votes cast, and, in , the District Court in Hawaii struck down Hawaii's state legislative plan that used registered voters, finding that the results did not "substantially approximate" those based on total population.
In , Congress failed to reapportion the House membership as required by the United States Constitution.