representation is equal for all states

Article I, Section 1:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Although the states generally favored a bicameral legislature, 1 Footnote 1 The Records of The Federal Convention of 1787 , at 54–55 (Max Farrand ed., 1911) . the states were heavily divided over the representation in each branch of Congress. 2 Footnote Id. at 509 ; Max Farrand , The Framing of the Constitution of the United States 92 (1913) . To resolve these concerns, the Convention delegates approved forming a “compromise committee” to devise a compromise among the proposed plans for Congress. 3 Footnote Farrand , Framing of the Constitution , supra note 2, at 97–98 . The committee proposed a plan that became known as the Great Compromise. 4 Footnote See generally id. at 91–112 (discussing the process that led to the Great Compromise). Roger Sherman and other delegates from Connecticut repeatedly advanced a legislative structure early in the Convention debates that eventually was proposed as the Great Compromise. See 1 The Records of The Federal Convention of 1787 , supra note 2, at 196 . Historians often credit Sherman and the Connecticut delegates as the architects of the Great Compromise. Mark David Hall , Roger Sherman and the Creation of the American Republic 96–98 (2013) (discussing Sherman’s proposal during the Convention debates that led to the “Connecticut Compromise” ); Farrand , Framing of the Constitution , supra note 2, at 106 . See also Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 12–13 (1964) (discussing Sherman’s role in the Great Compromise). The plan provided for a bicameral legislature with proportional representation based on a state’s population for one chamber and equal state representation in the other. 5 Footnote 1 The Records of The Federal Convention of 1787 , supra note 1, at 524 . See Farrand , Framing of the Constitution , supra note 2, at 104–07 . For the House of Representatives, the plan proposed that each state would have “one representative for every 40,000 inhabitants,” elected by the people. 6 Footnote 1 The Records of The Federal Convention of 1787 , supra note 1, at 526 . The compromise was amended to allow that state inhabitants would also include “three-fifths of the slaves” in the state. Id. at 603–06 ; Farrand , Framing of the Constitution , supra note 2, at 99 . For discussion of the “three-fifths” clause, see Intro.6.1 Continental Congress and Adoption of the Articles of Confederation. For the Senate, the committee proposed that each state would have an equal vote with members elected by the individual state legislatures. 7 Footnote 1 The Records of The Federal Convention of 1787 , supra note 1, at 160 . In 1913, the states ratified the Seventeenth amendment that requires members of the Senate to be elected by the people. After significant debate, the Convention adopted the Great Compromise on July 16, 1787. 8 Footnote Farrand , Framing of the Constitution , supra note 2, at 104–07 ; 1 Congressional Quarterly, Inc. , Guide to Congress 358, 367–68 (5th ed. 2000) (discussing of the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment ).

During the state ratification debates that followed the Convention, one of the central objections from the Anti-Federalists was that the consolidation of government power in a national Congress could “destroy” state legislative power. 9 Footnote Gordon S. Wood , Creation of the American Republic 1776–1787 , at 526–530 (1969) (discussing state ratifications concerning the jurisdiction of federal and state legislatures under the Constitution). The Federalists attempted to curb these fears by noting that the sovereign power of the Nation resides in the people, and the Constitution merely “distribute[s] one portion of power” to the state and “another proportion to the government of the United States.” 10 Footnote Id. at 530 (quoting James Wilson from the Pennsylvania ratifying convention from Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution 1787–1788 , at 302 (John Bach McMaster & Frederick D. Stone, eds. 2011) ). To further allay Anti-Federalist concerns regarding concentrated federal power in Congress, the Federalists emphasized that bicameralism, which lodged legislative power directly in the state governments through equal representation in the Senate, would serve to restrain, separate, and check federal power. 11 Footnote See id. at 559 (analyzing the Federalists’ views of bicameralism).

In vesting the legislative power in a bicameral Congress, the Framers of the Constitution purposefully divided and dispersed that power between two chambers—the House of Representatives with representation based on a state’s population and the Senate with equal state representation. 12 Footnote U.S. Const. art. I, § 7. cl. 2 . See The Federalist No. 39 (James Madison) ( “The house of representatives will derive its powers from the people of America, and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the Legislature of a particular State. So far the Government is national not federal. The Senate on the other hand will derive its powers from the States, as political and co-equal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is federal, not national.” ). The Framers recognized that the division of legislative power between two distinct chambers of elected members was needed “to protect liberty” and address the states’ fear of an imbalance of power in Congress. 13 Footnote See Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 950 (1983) ( “[T]he Framers were . . . concerned, although not of one mind, over the apprehensions of the smaller states. Those states feared a commonality of interest among the larger states would work to their disadvantage; representatives of the larger states, on the other hand, were skeptical of a legislature that could pass laws favoring a minority of the people.” See also The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison) ( “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.” ); Farrand , Framing of the Constitution , supra note 2, at 99–112 (describing the debate among the states regarding the structure of Congress). As later explained by Chief Justice Warren Burger, “the Great Compromise, under which one House was viewed as representing the people and the other the states, allayed the fears of both the large and small states.” 14 Footnote Chadha , 462 U.S. at 950 . See also Farrand , Framing of the Constitution , supra note 2, at 105–06 (explaining the structure of Congress as achieved under the “Great Compromise” ).

By diffusing legislative power between two chambers of Congress in the legislative Vesting Clause, the Framers of the Constitution sought to promote the separation of powers, federalism, and individual rights. 15 Footnote See The Federalist No. 62 (James Madison) ( “[A] senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient.” ). See also John F. Manning , Textualism as a Nondelegation Doctrine , 97 Colum. L. Rev. 673 , 708–09 (1997) (describing how the legislative procedures “promote caution and deliberation; by mandating that each piece of legislation clear an intricate process involving distinct constitutional actors, bicameralism and presentment reduce the incidence of hasty and ill-considered legislation” ). They designed the bicameral Congress so that “legislative power would be exercised only after opportunity for full study and debate in separate settings.” 16 Footnote Chadha , 462 U.S. at 951 . While acknowledging that the bicameral legislative process often produces conflict, inefficiency, and “in some instances [can] be injurious as well as beneficial,” the Framers believed that the intricate law-making process promotes open discussion and safeguards against “against improper acts of legislation.” 17 Footnote The Federalist No. 62 (James Madison) . John F. Manning , Textualism as a Nondelegation Doctrine , 97 Colum. L. Rev. 673 , 709–10 (1997) (discussing the legislative process as protection against “hasty and ill-considered legislation” ). Some scholars have argued that the Framers deliberately designed the lawmaking process to be slow and inefficient so that the laws that passed were sufficiently deliberative, representative, and accountable. See, e.g. , Cynthia R. Farina , Statutory Interpretation and the Balance of Power in the Administrative State , 89 Colum. L. Rev. 452 , 524 (1989) ( “The Confederation period led [the Framers] to conclude that government which moved too quickly in establishing and altering policy was, over time, less likely to make wise choices and more likely to threaten individual liberty. Therefore, they deliberately created a lawmaking process that was slow, even cumbersome.” ). As the Supreme Court later explained, the “legislative steps outlined in Art. I are not empty formalities” but serve to “make certain that there is an opportunity for deliberation and debate.” 18 Footnote Chadha , 462 U.S. at 958 n.23 .

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

How the Great Compromise and the Electoral College Affect Politics

By: Amanda Onion

Updated: August 9, 2023 | Original: April 17, 2018

The Great Compromise was forged in a heated dispute during the 1787 Constitutional Convention: States with larger populations wanted congressional representation based on population, while smaller states demanded equal representation. To keep the convention from dissolving into chaos, the founding fathers came up with the Great Compromise. The agreement, which created today’s system of congressional representation, now influences everything from “pork barrel” legislation to the way votes are counted in the electoral college during presidential elections.

The debate almost destroyed the U.S. Constitution.

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates from larger states believed each state’s representation in the newly proposed Senate should be proportionate to population.

Smaller states with lower populations argued that such an arrangement would lead to an unfair dominance of larger states in the new nation’s government, and each state should have equal representation, regardless of population.

The disagreement over representation threatened to derail the ratification of the U.S. Constitution since delegates from both sides of the dispute vowed to reject the document if they didn’t get their way. The solution came in the form of a compromise proposed by statesmen Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut.

The Great Compromise created two legislative bodies in Congress.

Also known as the Sherman Compromise or the Connecticut Compromise, the deal combined proposals from the Virginia (large state) plan and the New Jersey (small state) plan.

According to the Great Compromise, there would be two national legislatures in a bicameral Congress. Members of the House of Representatives would be allocated according to each state’s population and elected by the people.

In the second body—the Senate —each state would have two representatives regardless of the state’s size, and state legislatures would choose Senators. (In 1913, the 17th Amendment was passed, tweaking the Senate system so that Senators would be elected directly by the people.)

The plan was at first rejected, but then approved by a slim margin on July 23, 1787.

Smaller states have disproportionately more power in the Senate.

At the time of the convention, states’ populations varied, but not by nearly as much as they do today. As a result, one of the main lingering political effects of the Great Compromise is that states with smaller populations have a disproportionately bigger voice in the nation’s Congress.

As political scientist George Edwards III of Texas A&M University points out, California hosts about 68 times more people than Wyoming, yet they have the same number of votes in the Senate.

“The founders never imagined … the great differences in the population of states that exist today,” says Edwards. “If you happen to live in a low-population state you get a disproportionately bigger say in American government.”

The imbalance of proportionate power favoring smaller states in the Senate means that interests in those states, such as mining in West Virginia or hog farming in Iowa, are more likely to get attention—and money—from federal coffers.

“In the Senate when they’re trying to get to 51 votes to pass a bill, every vote counts,” says Todd Estes, a historian at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. “That’s when the smaller states can demand amendments and additions to bills to look out for their own state’s interest.”

The Great Compromise also skewed the electoral college.

The principle of protecting small states through equal representation in the Senate carries over into the electoral college, which elects the president since the number of electoral votes designated to each state is based on a state’s combined number of representatives in the House and Senate.

That means, for example, even though Wyoming only has three votes in the electoral college, with the smallest population of all the states, each elector represents a far smaller group of people than each of the 55 electoral votes in the most populous state of California.

The system ensures power is distributed geographically.

Some scholars see the small-state bias in the Senate as critical. The arrangement means that power in the Senate is distributed geographically, if not by population, ensuring that interests across the entire country are represented.

Gary L. Gregg II, a political scientist at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, argues in a 2012 article in Politico that major metropolitan areas already hold power by hosting major media, donor, academic and government centers. The structure of the Senate and the corresponding representation in the electoral college, he says, ensures that the interests of rural and small-town America are preserved.

Was that the intention of the Founding Fathers? Edwards is doubtful since, as he points out, the majority of Americans at the time of Constitutional Congress came from rural areas—not urban. “No one was thinking about protecting rural interests,” Edwards says. “Rural interests were dominant at the time.”

Whatever the viewpoint on the fairness of the Great Compromise’s distribution of delegates to the Senate, it is unlikely to ever change. This is because equal-state representation in the Senate is specifically protected in the Constitution.

According to Article V of the Constitution, no state can lose its equal representation in the Senate without the state’s permission. And no state is likely to willingly give up their say in the Senate.

HISTORY Vault: America the Story of Us

America The Story of Us is an epic 12-hour television event that tells the extraordinary story of how America was invented.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

United States Government/The Constitutional Convention

• 1 Philadelphia
• 2 The Legislature
• 3 The Executive
• 5 Conclusion

Philadelphia [ edit | edit source ]

The legislature [ edit | edit source ].

The United States were basically divided into two classes- the large (more populous) states and the small (less populous) states. The large states included Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Massachusetts. The small states included Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and even Maryland. Also, one may consider Georgia and the two Carolinas as small states, but these states hoped to increase their population and become large by importing slaves and attracting "immigrants" from other states. These were called “in-between states”

The large states wanted to have proportional representation in Congress. They wished that the more populous states have more representatives than the less populous states. However, fearing that they would be overwhelmed by large numbers of representatives from other states, the small state delegates suggested that all states receive equal representation like under the Articles.

James Madison of Virginia proposed a plan, which was presented by Edmund Randolph, supported by the large states, the Virginia Plan. It entailed:

• A very powerful Congress of two houses based on proportional representation
• One house elected by the people, and the second house elected by the first one
• An executive chosen by Congress
• Congressional power to cancel any state law
• Based on population

Meanwhile, New Jersey politician William Paterson proposed a plan on behalf of the small states. It involved:

• A Congress equivalent in structure to the Articles Congress
• A Congress more powerful than the Articles Congress, but not as powerful as the Virginia Plan Congress
• Congressional law being supreme over state law

Thirdly, Alexander Hamilton of New York proposed a plan extremely similar to the British government. The British plan included:

• A legislature of two houses
• One house chosen by the people for limited terms
• Another house chosen by a special body for life terms
• An executive chosen by a special body for a life term
• Congressional power to cancel any state law.

Hamilton's plan was rejected very quickly- it reminded the delegates too much of the tyranny and unhappiness under the King of the State of Great Britain.

Connecticut Delegate Roger Sherman suggested that the small and large states compromise. He felt that the large states would never accept equal representation, while the small ones would never accept just proportional representation. His compromise, known as the Great Compromise, suggested the following:

• A Congress with two houses
• One house based on proportional representation
• Another house based on equal representation

Though Sherman's compromise was initially rejected, the delegates were forced to accept it eventually. Otherwise, the Convention would have clearly broken down on the issue of representation.

The Executive [ edit | edit source ]

Once the issue of representation was resolved, other issues seemed relatively easy to negotiate. The delegates continued to compromise on several issues, including the executive.

Firstly, the delegates were concerned about a single individual as executive. The King, they said, was an individual with too much power. However, the argument failed when some pointed out that every single state in the union had one Chief Executive called a President or a Governor, rather than a Council of Presidents or Governors, and none of the states suffered from that Governor's tyranny. Similarly, the executive was granted substantial but not absolute power, after the example of the individual states.

(Pennsylvania at one time in its history had a council of three Presidents.)

The manner of choosing the executive was the only one of concern. The following were proposed as electors for the President:

• The state Legislatures
• The state Governors
• The Congress

The Framers rejected the idea of election by the People because they felt that, it would be impractical in the days of difficult communication, and inappropriate because the people would "naturally" vote for local candidates without any regard for those from other states. Also, they rejected the state or Congressional choice because they assumed that the President would feel indebted to and controlled by the states or the Congress. Such a problem would be present with any permanent body. Thus, they established a temporary body whose sole purpose was to elect the President- the Electoral College. (See Part III, Chapter 2.)

Slavery [ edit | edit source ]

The problem of slavery, after the issue of representation, was probably the most dangerous one for the Convention to tackle. If the Convention adopted a plan that upset one region, then the states of that region might have withdrawn from the Convention, breaking up the meeting.

Related to the issue of representation was the counting of slaves to decide the population of a state for the purpose of proportional representation in Congress. The South wanted slaves to count, but the North feared that the South could increase its power in Congress by importing more slaves. The Three-Fifths Compromise suggested the same standard as the Article of Confederation-"other persons," or slaves would be counted as three-fifths of persons. The three-fifths rule would be applied for deciding proportions in Congress and amounts of direct tax due from each state.

Another compromise relating to slavery involved the importation of slaves. The Constitutional Convention compromised by allowing the slave trade to continue until 1808, when the Congress could lawfully ban it.

Conclusion [ edit | edit source ]

The tired delegates were faced with a problem - that of a Bill of Rights. The delegates, however, refused to take the risk of breaking up the Convention and wasting hard work by debating specific rights. Thus, they assumed that a newly assembled Congress would add these Amendments, or they felt that the present Constitutional protections were sufficient.

In order for the Constitution to gain effect, the Convention required that nine states approve it. In addition, the states not ratifying, or approving, the Constitution would not be subject to it.

• Book:United States Government

Navigation menu

• Mischiefs of Faction

The Senate represents states, not people. That’s the problem.

States as states do need representation in the federal government. Under the Constitution, they have far too much.

by Hans Noel

If you buy something from a Vox link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement.

The confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court last week spurred a lively discussion about institutional design.

After the vote a week ago,  some noted that the 50 senators who voted to confirm represent about 45 percent of the population. 

A number of astute constitutional historians quickly spoke up to point out that of course that happens, because the Senate represents states and not people. If you want to see the people represented, look to the House.

But of course, the fact that the Constitution does something isn’t the same as that something being good.  We continue to debate the Constitution itself ,  and specifically the disproportional Senate . If our intuition tells us that there’s something wrong when a minority has that much power, we should pay attention. The Senate’s equal representation of states — not people — should be discussed on its merits.

I don’t think it stands up.

The case for states

The United States is a federal system. Each state has its own sovereignty and has some authority over its own interests. The relative authority of the state and the national government is contested, but the states retain something. 

But since the federal government is so powerful, the states need a way to protect themselves. The Framers’ approach to this sort problem is to let ambition check ambition. The legislature and the president check and balance each other. Similarly, the states are not protected from the federal government by mere parchment barriers. They can defend themselves through their representation in the Senate. 

These concerns were central for the Framers, who were looking at the Constitution from the very state-centered perspective of the Articles of Confederation. Each state had its own government and identity, and their relationship to one another was weak. The Constitution aimed to make that relationship stronger, but states were still the players. An American was a citizen of their state first, and of the union second. 

The case for people 

We have come a long way since the founding. Political scientist Daniel J. Hopkins, in his new book,  The Increasingly United States , traces how America has gone from “all politics is local” to a world in which national issues dominate even local conflicts.

Hopkins devotes an entire chapter to the question of whether people think of themselves as Americans or as citizens of their states. Across a wide range of measures, he shows that Americans see themselves as Americans first, citizens of their states second. As he puts it: “Compared to their attachment to the nation as a whole, their place-based attachment is markedly weaker. What is more, the content of state-level identities is typically divorced from politics.”

That finding doesn’t mesh well with the idea of people being represented in government through their states. And citizens, politicians and parties have all long realized that. Political strategies for all national offices involve coordination across geography. If you live in a deep red state, you can donate to a candidate running in a purple one. If your district is safe for the Democrats, you can travel to canvass for a candidate in a swing district.  

It is illegal for foreign nationals to contribute money to a US electoral campaign. It is neither illegal nor uncommon for citizens to contribute to electoral campaigns in other states. Some candidates receive sizable portions of their resources from out of their own state.

When Americans are hacking the Constitution to get around the geographic nature of our representation, that should be a red flag.

Balancing the representation of states and people

Of course, the Constitution does not  only allow for the representation of states. The central debate at the constitutional convention was over precisely this balance. Doesn’t the House address that problem?

Yes, but poorly.

For one, because every state must have at least one member in the House, there are still distortions. But even aside from that, single-member districts means we’re still representing territory instead of people. These districts are almost impossible to draw so that the politicians elected reflect the balance of preferences across the entire country. 

Right now, that means a bias toward Republicans. Democratic candidates could outpoll Republicans by  up to five points and still not be favored to take control of the House. It doesn’t matter whether this is due to conscious gerrymandering or because Democratic voters are concentrated in urban areas. The problem is single-member districts in the first place. 

I don’t know of any research to prove it, but I am pretty sure very few Americans think of themselves as first and foremost citizens of their congressional district. 

Even the president, for whom at least citizens across the country can vote, is elected through the Electoral College, which in turn filters votes through the states. 

In short, the supposed balance between state interests and individual citizen interests that the Framers struck isn’t much balance at all.  Some Framers observed exactly that at the time . And as the country has evolved, the value of having such strong representation for geography seems to have only waned.

What can be done?

If you agree that we should rethink the way in which we over-represent the states, what could be done? Unfortunately, not much.

One thing we  can’t do is make the Senate more proportional. Nothing in the logic of federal representation would prevent this. In fact, other countries have upper chambers in legislatures that represent constituent states but that also represent them proportionally. 

But we can’t do this, even with an amendment, because the only limit that Article V of the Constitution places on amendments is that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

We could change the powers of the Senate. Why should a body whose unequal representation is justified by the need to protect federalism be so central in confirming Supreme Court justices, who rule on individual citizens’ rights? Why should it have a veto on any legislation that has nothing to do with states as states?

Around the world, most upper chambers are less powerful than the lower chambers that represent the people more directly. In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords can mostly only delay things that the House of Commons wants to do.  

If the Senate is to be justified on the grounds that states need a say, its powers should be determined by that justification.

Such changes would be hard to do, and might not make enough difference. The other thing, then, would be to correct the imbalance in the House and the  Electoral College .  Multi-member districts could make the House more reflective of the popular vote.

If we’re serious about trying to bridge the divide between red and blue America, a good start would be to have all of America elect more of the legislature.

Most Popular

Why are whole-body deodorants suddenly everywhere, if trump wins, what would hold him back, take a mental break with the newest vox crossword, what the death of iran’s president could mean for its future, the known unknowns about ozempic, explained, today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

More in Mischiefs of Faction

Brazil’s Supreme Court pushed back against an attempt to cancel participatory councils

Six political scientists react to the first Democratic primary debates

Technology and transparency: the path to a modern Congress?

Brazil’s Bolsonaro took a page from US politics by dangling the possibility of an evangelical Supreme Court Justice

What’s motivating the DNC’s debate rules

Why everyone runs for president these days

Bridgerton’s third season is more diverse — and even shallower — than ever

The misleading, wasteful way we measure gas mileage, explained

The Republican Party's man inside the Supreme Court

Why Trump's running mate could be the most important VP pick of our time

Rent control for child care?

Introducing Vox’s next chapter

Color Scheme

• Use system setting
• Light theme

We the People: Senate designed to give all states equal representation

Each week, The Spokesman-Review examines one question from the Naturalization Test immigrants must pass to become United States citizens.

Today’s question: How many U.S. senators are there now?

The Constitution provides for two senators for each state and as there are 50 states, there are 100 senators.

That creates a legislative body that is much smaller than the House of Representatives, which has 435 representatives that are elected in districts based on population and whose numbers vary from state to state.

That difference is part of a compromise that arose in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. At the time, the country was governed by a one-chamber congress set up by the Articles of Confederation. State legislatures could send between two and seven delegates to that congress, but each state had only one vote on issues before the chamber.

The members of the Constitutional Convention came up with a two-chamber Congress as one of their checks and balances of a new federal government’s power, which they were increasing. One chamber might yield to what James Madison called “the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions,” but a second chamber would work as check on the first.

As Madison, the principle author of the Constitution, wrote in the Federalist Papers Article 62, “the government ought to be founded on mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation.” The House gave the larger states proportional representation while the Senate gave the smaller, less populous states equal representation.

Senators also were required to have some higher qualifications. Their minimum age was 30, compared to 25 for House members, and they must have been a citizen for at least nine years, compared to seven for the House. They serve six-year terms, with a third of the Senate elected every two years, compared to all House members being elected every two years.

Senators also were chosen originally by state legislatures, rather than by voters.

The Founders believed that popular sentiment could lead to poor legislation in the House, but that could be tempered by the smaller and more deliberate Senate where members were not subject to the pressures of the voters.

Problems with corruption in some legislatures over the appointment of senators led to the 17th Amendment, giving each state’s voters the power to elect their senators, starting in 1914.

To pass legislation, the Senate needs a simple majority, which is 51 votes if all senators are present. The current Senate has 50 senators who are Republicans and 50 who are Democrats or independents who join with them on most issues. Under the Constitution, when the vote in the Senate is tied, the vice president, who is also president of the Senate, can cast a vote to break the tie.

Because Vice President Kamala Harris is also a Democrat, that party has nominal control of the Senate.

Other votes, however, require supermajorities. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote to convict someone of impeachment and Senate rules require 60 votes to end a delaying tactic – known as filibuster – on many issues.

All those EVs are great, but where will the electricity come from?

As part of my career of over 30 years in the energy industry, I led the effort to complete Oregon’s portion of the West Coast’s “Electric Highway.”

Chapter 14: Establishing Equality in Voting and Representation

Baker v. Carr (1962) , Reynolds v. Sims (1964)

Representative democracy has deep roots in the United States. It is based on free, fair, competitive, and periodic elections by which citizens vote to choose their representatives in government. These representatives of the people—chosen by a majority, or a plurality, of the voters— serve the interests and needs of their constituents. When the people’s representatives make decisions and otherwise carry out their duties in the government, there is an expectation of accountability. If they do not satisfy the citizens they represent, then most voters are likely to cast their ballots for someone else or for another political party in the next election.

Given the centrality of the electoral process in a representative democracy, the right to vote is the citizen’s most precious political possession. By using the vote responsibly, citizens can contribute significantly to the achievement of good government.

But what if some votes count more than others? Can there be an authentic representative democracy if equal representation of constituents is not achieved through the electoral process? Can government be fair, if the interests of some groups of voters have more weight than those of less privileged groups in the decisions of their representatives?

Public concern about questions of equality in voting, and in the representation of voters, led to a series of notable cases at the Supreme Court. The first of these cases, Baker v. Carr in 1962, and the last, Reynolds v. Sims in 1964, yielded the pivotal decisions that established, once and for all, the fundamental democratic principle of “one person, one vote” also with regard to Congressional elections.

These Supreme Court decisions were made in response to unequal representation in state governments and disparate voting power of citizens residing in different places within the states. When each legislator represents an electoral district with approximately the same number of people, then the voting power of the people in all districts of the state is roughly equal. But this kind of equality in representation and voting power was nonexistent in most parts of the country. This inequity developed during the first half of the twentieth century when the distribution of the nation’s population changed.

Representation of voters in state governments throughout the United States became more and more unequal due to mass movements of people from rural to urban residences. During the 1920s, for the first time in American history, more people were living in cities than in rural areas, but in most states, the government had not changed the legislative districts to reflect this dramatic change. The result was disproportionate voting power for people living in underpopulated and overrepresented rural districts.

In 1960 nearly every state had some urban legislative districts with populations that were at least twice as large as those in the state’s rural districts. In Alabama, for example, the smallest congressional district had a population of 6,700 and the largest had a population of more than 104,000; nonetheless, each district had one congressional seat. In a representative democracy, people’s votes possess equal value only when each member of the legislative body represents approximately the same number of people.

Clearly, the people in more populous urban districts and the people in the less populous rural districts were not represented equally. Consequently, city and suburban problems did not receive appropriate attention in state legislatures that were dominated by representatives from districts with many farms and small towns. The powerful rural representatives refused to redistrict in order to ensure that each member of the legislature would represent roughly the same number of people. Some simply ignored the sections of their state constitutions requiring redistricting every ten years. Others merely redistricted and reapportioned representation in ways that continued to favor rural interests. There was little voters could do to change things through the electoral process, because apportionment of representatives heavily favored the rural areas, which stubbornly resisted reform.

Baker v. Carr

• 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
• Decided: March 26, 1962
• Opinion of the Court: William J. Brennan
• Concurring opinions: William O. Douglas, Tom Clark, and Potter Stewart
• Dissenting opinions: Felix Frankfurter and John Marshall Harlan II
• Not participating: Charles E. Whittaker

Disgruntled urban leaders turned to the legal process to seek equitable representation in government. Charles Baker, the mayor of Millington, Tennessee, a rapidly growing suburb of Memphis, and the leader of the legislative reapportionment movement in Tennessee, was extremely frustrated by the indifference of state legislators to problems in the rapidly growing cities of Tennessee. The state lawmakers routinely snubbed petitions for assistance from urban leaders such as Baker, because the cities of Tennessee were grossly underrepresented in the legislature. By contrast, the overrepresented rural voters got most of the attention and benefits from the state government, because they were the constituents of the vast majority of the legislators.

Approximately 11 percent of the state’s population lived in the rural areas of Tennessee, but more than 60 percent of the representatives in the state legislature were elected by voters residing in the rural areas. Because of this imbalance, the legislature neglected the problems and needs of urban voters. For example, the leader of the Tennessee House of Representatives said, “I believe in collecting the taxes where the money is—in the cities—and spending it where it’s needed—in the country.”

As state government officials were unwilling to reform the electoral system, Charles Baker turned to the federal courts for relief. In 1959, he brought suit against Joseph Cordell Carr, the Tennessee secretary of state, to force reapportionment of the legislature. But the federal district court dismissed the suit because of the legal precedent set in Colegrove v. Green (1946).

The Colegrove case involved reapportionment in Illinois, where population distribution in congressional districts was similar to the situation in Tennessee. However, the U.S. Supreme Court did not respond to this problem. Writing for the Court’s majority in Colegrove , Justice Felix Frankfurter dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, which means that the Court had no authority or legal right to consider this case. Frankfurter held that this case was not justiciable. That is, it was not an appropriate case for the Court to decide, because it posed political questions properly settled by the executive and legislative branches of government, whose leading members are elected by the people. He said, “It is hostile to a democratic system to involve the judiciary in the politics of the people.” He concluded with the admonition that the courts “ought not enter this political thicket.”

Charles Baker appealed the district court’s decision, and in 1962 his case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which seemed interested in reconsidering the issues first presented to it by Colegrove in 1946. Only one of the Court’s majority in Colegrove , Justice Frankfurter, was still a member of the Court in 1962. But two of the dissenters, Justices Black and Douglas, remained and they influenced Chief Justice Warren and the other justices to side with them in accepting the Baker v. Carr case. Charles Rhyne, counsel for Charles Baker, argued that urban voters in Tennessee were denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. He requested that the state be ordered to redraw its legislative districts so that each person’s vote would be of equal weight. The Court, however, restricted its decision to questions of whether the Court should hear the case; that is to issues about jurisdiction, justiciability, and standing—a direct interest in the outcome of the case. Thus, the Court decided not to pass judgment on the merits of the complaint brought by the plaintiff about unequal and unfair representation of voters in the state legislature. Nonetheless, the Court’s decision in Baker overturned the precedent established in the 1946 Colegrove case, which was a significant breakthrough for the cause of electoral reform.

Justice William Brennan, writing for the majority, ruled that the Court had jurisdiction or authority to hear this case; he said that “the right [to equal apportionment of representation] is within the reach of judicial protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Brennan held that Baker and his associates had standing to bring this complaint to the Court; because as registered voters in an underrepresented urban area, they had an undeniable claim to injury based on unequal representation and thus a stake in the outcome of this case.

The most important part of Brennan’s ruling was that the issue in this case was not a political question and thus was justiciable, or appropriate for the judiciary to decide. He held that the issue in Baker v. Carr was not a political question because it had nothing to do with the principle of separation of powers among the three coordinate branches of government: “[W]e have no questions decided, or to be decided, by a political branch of government coequal with the Court.” Justice Brennan stressed that the issues in the case did not pertain to Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution, the guaranty of a republican form of government. Questions involving this part of the Constitution were traditionally understood to be outside the Court’s authority. Justice Brennan wrote,

Of course, the mere fact that the suit seeks protection of a political right does not mean it presents a political question . . . Rather, it is argued that the apportionment cases . . . can involve no federal constitutional right except one resting on the guaranty of a republican form of government [Article 4, Section 4], and the complaints based on that clause have been held to present political questions which are nonjusticiable. We hold that the claim pleaded here neither rests upon nor implicates the guaranty Clause and that its justiciability is therefore not foreclosed by our decisions of cases involving that clause.

Brennan concluded “that the complaint’s allegations of a denial of equal protection [under the Fourteenth Amendment] present a justiciable constitutional cause.” Thus, Baker was entitled to a trial, and the case was remanded (sent back) to the federal district court, which now had the authority to make a substantive decision in this case. The court decided in favor of Baker.

Two justices, Felix Frankfurter and John Marshall Harlan II, dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision in Baker v. Carr . In his final opinion as an associate justice (a heart attack forced his retirement on August 28, 1962), Frankfurter lamented the overturning of precedent established in Colegrove v. Green , because he claimed the issue in Baker , as in Colegrove , was essentially political, and not judicial. Thus, he argued, the issue should be left to the executive and legislative branches to decide. Further, Frankfurter claimed that the Baker decision was a “massive repudiation of the experience of our whole past in asserting destructively novel judicial power.” He said it departed from a long tradition of judicial restraint that could be traced to the founding of the republic, whereby the exercise of judicial power was curtailed in order to avoid usurping authority belonging to the political branches of government.

Justice Harlan agreed strongly with Frankfurter, and he argued there was nothing in the U.S. Constitution that required state legislatures to be apportioned in order to equally represent each voter. Both dissenters asserted that the Court’s decision in this case was a product of unwarranted judicial activism, which intruded wrongly into the democratic political process.

The dissenters’ opinions, however, were overwhelmed not only within the Court but throughout the United States. Most major newspapers published favorable editorials about the Court’s decision, and public opinion generally seemed to support it. U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy spoke for the majority of Americans when he called this decision “a landmark in the development of representative government.”

Baker v. Carr was the first in a series of cases that led to legislative redistricting throughout the nation. The principle of “one person, one vote”—often associated with Baker —was actually expressed one year later by Justice Douglas in his opinion for the Court in Gray v. Sanders (1963). In this case, the Court ruled against a Georgia law that assigned greater electoral weight to sparsely populated rural counties than to heavily populated urban areas. In his argument against the Georgia electoral system, Douglas wrote, “The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing—one person, one vote.”

Reynolds v. Sims

• 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
• Decided: June 15, 1964
• Opinion of the Court: Earl Warren
• Concurring opinions: Tom Clark and Potter Stewart
• Dissenting opinion: John Marshall Harlan II

The culminating case on equality in voting and representation was Reynolds v. Sims (1964), which originated in Alabama. Voters in Jefferson County, the state’s most densely populated county, which included the big city of Birmingham, claimed that the unequal representation of citizens in Alabama districts violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to establish equally populated electoral districts for both houses of state legislatures. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that plans for setting up legislative districts could not discriminate against people on the basis of where they live (city versus country in this case) any more than they could discriminate on the basis of a person’s race or economic status.

The Court rejected the idea that state legislatures could create electoral districts differently for each of two houses of the state legislature—the representation in one house based on districts roughly equal in population and in the other house based on equal representation of areas regardless of population differences. Instead, Chief Justice Warren argued, the voters of a state must be treated equally by equal representation of electoral districts in both houses of the state legislature. “Legislators represent people, not trees or acres,” declared the Chief Justice. Warren pointed out that counties within a state were not the political equivalents of the states within the federal union of the United States. Thus, unlike the states, which have equal representation in the Senate regardless of differences in population, the counties within a state could not have equal representation, regardless of population differences, in either house of a state legislature.

The Court ruled that state legislatures did not have to draw legislative districts with “mathematical exactness or precision.” However, such districts did have to be based “substantially” on equal population. The Court thus reinforced a bedrock principle of electoral democracy: “one person, one vote.”

As he did in Baker v. Carr , two years before, Justice John Marshall Harlan II dissented against the Court’s ruling, holding firm in his belief that redistricting was an issue best left to the elected representatives of the people in the political branches of state governments. He claimed, as he had in 1962, that this case involved no violation of anyone’s constitutional rights.

The Court’s Reynolds decision was the end of a process initiated by Baker v. Carr in 1962 that transformed the electoral landscape of America by establishing that rural minorities throughout the United States could no longer control state legislatures. After this 1964 decision, forty-nine state legislatures reapportioned their legislative districts on the basis of equal population. (Oregon had already done so in 1961.) This decision also affected national politics because state legislatures draw the lines for the U.S. Congressional districts. This certainly was a great victory for urban voters throughout America. It was also a triumph for the very idea of democracy, which entails rule by the people based on the votes of the majority.

Reflecting on his illustrious career as chief justice of the United States, Earl Warren said these cases were landmarks “in the development of representative government.” Near the end of his life, Warren said the Court’s decisions in Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims —forever remembered as the “one person, one vote” cases—were the most important ones decided during his sixteen years as the chief justice, because they strengthened significantly the practice of democracy, government of the people, which is based on equality in voting and representation.

“The Right to Vote is the Greatest Civil Right”

After the Supreme Court decides to accept a case, a date and time for oral argument is set. Attorneys on both sides of the case speak before the assembled justices in the chamber, or courtroom, of the Supreme Court Building. It is a long-standing tradition for attorneys to begin their formal presentations with the phrase, “May it please the Court.” The justices typically interrupt an attorney’s presentation with questions or comments. In 1955, Chief Justice Earl Warren launched an oral history project—the audio recording of oral arguments in cases that come before the Supreme Court. Charles Rhyne’s oral argument in Baker v. Carr was recorded on April 19, 1961. Rhyne, representing Charles Baker, challenged the unequally apportioned voting districts in Tennessee and called for equality in voting for representatives in government.

Warren: Mr. Rhyne?

Rhyne: Chief Justice Warren, and may it please the Court.

This is a voting rights case. It’s brought here on appeal by eleven Tennessee voters who seek federal court protection to end flagrant discrimination against their right to vote. These eleven Tennessee voters live in five of the largest cities of Tennessee. They are the intended and actual victims of a statutory scheme which devalues, reduces, their right to vote to about one-twentieth of the value of the vote given to certain rural residents. Since the right to vote is the greatest civil right, the most fundamental civil right under our system of government, this system under the statute of Tennessee is as shocking as it is purposeful and successful . . .

The way in which these voting rights of the plaintiffs have been effectively denied—so effectively, we say, as to be effectively destroyed—is by a so-called reapportionment statute adopted in 1901. Now, the ultimate thrust of that statute today is that one-third of the qualified voters living in the rural areas of the state of Tennessee elect two-thirds of the state legislature. Now, that 1901 statute . . . violates the requirement of equality in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America . . .

The Fourteenth Amendment strikes down discriminations whether they are sophisticated or simpleminded; and we think that, whether you cloak it under the terms of reapportionment or any other cloak, . . . that this is a discrimination which is clear from the facts in the complaint, and under these facts these voters have a constitutional right that is invaded and have standing to maintain this suit. Because a man’s right to vote is personal to him . . . And when these people have their right to vote invaded, diluted, rendered worthless or practically so by the 1901 act, it’s a personal wrong to them to have their vote so affected . . .

Court [identity of the justice is undetermined]: Do you claim that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that each person’s vote in the state be given equal weight?

Rhyne: Reasonable equality, reasonable equality.

Court:As a matter of . . .

Rhyne: Not mathematical equality.

Court: Not mathematical equality?

Rhyne: But reasonable equality. I think that that is the thrust of the equal protection of the laws requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment . . .

Frankfurter:Will you . . . tell us what the remedy is to be here, other than to declare this unconstitutional? . . .

Rhyne: Number one, there is a clear violation of a constitutional right. Number two, there is no reasonable basis for the voting discrimination which is laid out in the complaint, and the defendants offer no justifications for it, and they cannot offer it on these facts.

And, as I have just said, there is no other remedy. We’re at the end of the road. If this is a judicial no-man’s land, these people, the two-thirds of the voters of Tennessee, are consigned to be second-class citizens for the rest of their life, because these defendants exalt their position into an untouchable absolute.

Related Resources

• Video: One Person, One Vote: Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims
• Handout: One Person, One Vote: Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims

Table of Contents

Module 6: Creating a Government (1776-1789)

The constitutional convention, learning objectives.

• Identify the central issues of the 1787 Constitutional Convention and their solutions
• Explain the differences between the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan, and the Connecticut Compromise

There had been earlier efforts to address the Confederation’s perilous state. In early 1786, Virginia’s James Madison advocated a meeting of states to address the widespread economic problems that plagued the new nation. Heeding Madison’s call, the legislature in Virginia invited all thirteen states to meet in Annapolis, Maryland, to work on solutions for the issue of commerce between the states. Eight states responded to the invitation. But the resulting 1786 Annapolis Convention failed to provide any solutions because only five states sent delegates. These delegates did, however, agree to a plan put forward by Alexander Hamilton for a second convention to meet in May 1787 in Philadelphia. Shays’ Rebellion gave greater urgency to the planned convention. In February 1787, in the wake of the uprising in western Massachusetts, the Confederation Congress authorized the Philadelphia convention. This time, all the states except Rhode Island sent delegates to Philadelphia to confront the problems of the day.

The stated purpose of the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 was to amend the Articles of Confederation. Very quickly, however, the attendees decided to create a new framework for a national government. That framework became the United States Constitution, and the Philadelphia convention became known as the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Fifty-five men met in Philadelphia in secret; historians know of the proceedings only because James Madison kept careful notes of what transpired. The delegates knew that what they were doing would be controversial; Rhode Island refused to send delegates, and New Hampshire’s delegates arrived late. Two delegates from New York, Robert Yates and John Lansing, left the convention when it became clear that the Articles were being put aside and a new plan of national government was being drafted. They did not believe the delegates had the authority to create a strong national government.

Link to Learning

Read “Reasons for Dissent from the Proposed Constitution” in order to understand why Robert Yates and John Lansing, New York’s delegates to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, didn’t believe the convention should draft a new plan of national government.

The Question of Representation

Figure 1 . James Madison’s Virginia Plan, shown here, proposed a strong national government with proportional state representation.

One issue that the delegates in Philadelphia addressed was the way in which representatives to the new national government would be chosen. Would individual citizens be able to elect representatives? Would representatives be chosen by state legislatures? How much representation was appropriate for each state?

James Madison put forward a proposition known as the Virginia Plan , which called for a strong national government that could overturn state laws. The plan featured a bicameral or two-house legislature, with an upper and a lower house. The people of the states would elect the members of the lower house, whose numbers would be determined by the population of the state. State legislatures would send delegates to the upper house. The number of representatives in the upper chamber would also be based on the state’s population. This proportional representation gave the more populous states, like Virginia, more political power. The Virginia Plan also called for an executive branch and a judicial branch, both of which were absent under the Articles of Confederation. The lower and upper house together were to appoint members to the executive and judicial branches. Under this plan, Virginia, the most populous state, would dominate national political power and ensure its interests, including slavery, would be safe.

The Virginia Plan’s call for proportional representation alarmed the representatives of the smaller states. William Paterson introduced a New Jersey Plan to counter Madison’s scheme, proposing that all states have equal votes in a unicameral national legislature. He also addressed the economic problems of the day by calling for the Congress to have the power to regulate commerce, to raise revenue through taxes on imports and through postage, and to enforce Congressional requisitions from the states.

Roger Sherman from Connecticut offered a compromise to break the deadlock over the thorny question of representation. His Connecticut Compromise , also known as the Great Compromise, outlined a different bicameral legislature in which the upper house, the Senate, would have equal representation for all states; each state would be represented by two senators chosen by the state legislatures. Only the lower house, the House of Representatives, would have proportional representation.

This video explains how the Connecticut Compromise ultimately solved the contest between the nationalists, who wanted a strong national government and proportional representation, and those who emphasized state rights and wanted equal state representation.

You can view the  transcript for “The Great Compromise” here (opens in new window) .

The Question of Slavery

The question of slavery stood as a major issue at the Constitutional Convention because slaveholders wanted enslaved people to be counted along with Whites, termed “free inhabitants,” when determining a state’s total population. This, in turn, would increase the number of representatives accorded to those states in the lower house. Some northerners, however, such as New York’s Gouverneur Morris, hated slavery and did not even want the term included in the new national plan of government. Slaveholders argued that slavery imposed great burdens upon them and that, because they carried this liability, they deserved special consideration; enslaved people needed to be counted for purposes of representation.

The issue of counting or not counting enslaved people for purposes of representation connected directly to the question of taxation. Beginning in 1775, the Second Continental Congress asked states to pay for war by collecting taxes and sending the tax money to the Congress. The amount each state had to deliver in tax revenue was determined by a state’s total population, including both free and enslaved individuals. States routinely fell far short of delivering the money requested by Congress under the plan. In April 1783, the Confederation Congress amended the earlier system of requisition by having enslaved people count as three-fifths of the White population. In this way, slaveholders gained a significant tax break. The delegates in Philadelphia adopted this same three-fifths formula in the summer of 1787.

Under the three-fifths compromise in the 1787 Constitution, each enslaved person would be counted as three-fifths of a White person. Article 1, Section 2 stipulated that “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several states . . . according to their respective Number, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free Persons, including those bound for service for a Term of Years [White servants], and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.” Since representation in the House of Representatives was based on the population of a state, the three-fifths compromise gave extra political power to states with an enslaved population, although not as much as if the total population, both free and slave, had been used. Significantly, no direct federal income tax was immediately imposed. (The Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, put in place a federal income tax.) Northerners agreed to the three-fifths compromise because the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, passed by the Confederation Congress, banned slavery in the future states of the northwest. Northern delegates felt this ban balanced political power between states with slaves and those without. The three-fifths compromise gave an advantage to slaveholders; they added three-fifths of their human property to their state’s population, allowing them to send representatives based in part on the number of enslaved people they held, even though those people were not allowed to speak for themselves or vote.

The Question of Democracy

Many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had serious reservations about democracy, which they believed promoted anarchy. To allay these fears, the Constitution blunted democratic tendencies that appeared to undermine the republic. Thus, to avoid giving the people too much direct power, the delegates made certain that senators were chosen by the state legislatures, not elected directly by the people (direct elections of senators came with the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1913). As an additional safeguard, the delegates created the Electoral College, the mechanism for choosing the president. Under this plan, each state has a certain number of electors, which is its number of senators (two) plus its number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Critics, then as now, argue that this process prevents the direct election of the president.

This video reviews the historical context surrounding the creation of the Constitution and some of the compromises that were made during the Constitutional Convention.

You can view the  transcript for “The Constitution, the Articles, and Federalism” here (opens in new window) .

Review Question

Explain the argument that led to the three-fifths rule and the consequences of that rule.

anti-federalists:  those who opposed the 1787 Constitution and favored stronger individual states

bicameral:  having two legislative houses, an upper and a lower house

Connecticut Compromise:  also known as the Great Compromise, Roger Sherman’s proposal at the Constitutional Convention for a bicameral legislature, with the upper house having equal representation for all states and the lower house having proportional representation

electoral college:  the mechanism by which electors, based on the number of representatives from each state, choose the president

federalists:  those who supported the 1787 Constitution and a strong central government; these advocates of the new national government formed the ruling political party in the 1790s

proportional representation:  representation that gives more populous states greater political power by allowing them more representatives

three-fifths compromise:  the agreement at the Constitutional Convention that each enslaved person would count as three-fifths of a White person for purposes of representation

• The Constitutional Convention and Federal Constitution. Provided by : OpenStax College. Located at : https://openstax.org/books/us-history/pages/7-4-the-constitutional-convention-and-federal-constitution . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/us-history/pages/1-introduction
• Constitution of the United States. Provided by : Wikipedia. Located at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• The Constitution, the Articles, and Federalism: Crash Course US History #8. Provided by : CrashCourse. Located at : https://youtu.be/bO7FQsCcbD8?t=1s . License : All Rights Reserved . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
• The Great Compromise. Provided by : NBC News Learn. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgEj6QCX63I . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

What’s Going On in This Graph? | Senate Representation by State

Two senators represent each state in Congress. How does that affect political representation across the United States?

By The Learning Network

Note: We are featuring this graph for two weeks at the top of the “What’s Going On in This Graph” column. On Wednesday, Nov. 9, there will be a live-moderated discussion of this graph.

According to the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.” All states, regardless of population size, have two senators.

This infographic, which appeared elsewhere on NYTimes.com, shows the number of voters — citizens 18 years and older, per senator for a sample of six states. Comparable infographics can be constructed for all states.

On Wednesday, Nov. 9, we will moderate your responses live online. By Friday morning, Nov. 11, we will provide the “Reveal” — the infographic’s free online link, additional questions, shout outs for student headlines and Stat Nuggets.

1. After looking closely at the graph above (or at this full-size image ), answer these four questions:

What do you notice?

What do you wonder?

How does this relate to you and your community?

What’s going on in this graph? Create a catchy headline that captures the graph’s main idea.

The questions are intended to build on one another, so try to answer them in order.

2. Next, join the conversation online by clicking on the comment button and posting in the box. (Teachers of students younger than 13 are welcome to post their students’ responses.)

3. Below the response box, there is an option to click on “Email me when my comment is published.” This sends the link to your response which you can share with your teacher.

4. After you have posted, read what others have said, then respond to someone else by posting a comment. Use the “Reply” button to address that student directly.

On Wednesday, Nov. 9, teachers from our collaborator, the American Statistical Association , will facilitate this discussion from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Eastern time.

5. By Friday morning, Nov. 11, we will reveal more information about the graph, including a free link to the article that includes this graph, at the bottom of this post. We encourage you to post additional comments based on the article, possibly using statistical terms defined in the Stat Nuggets.

In the New York Times article “ ‘A Crisis Coming’: The Twin Threats to American Democracy ,” published on Sept. 17, 2022, David Leonhardt writes about the effects of unequal representation in the Senate. In the Senate, each state is represented by two senators, no matter how large or small the state is. He writes about how the country’s changing population patterns especially affect the Senate:

The sorting of liberals into large metropolitan areas and conservatives into more rural areas is only one reason. Another is that large states have grown much more quickly than small states. In 1790, the largest state (Virginia) had about 13 times as many residents as the smallest (Delaware). Today, California has 68 times as many residents as Wyoming; 53 times as many as Alaska; and at least 20 times as many as another 11 states. Together, these trends mean that the Senate has a heavily pro-Republican bias that will last for the foreseeable future. The Senate today is split 50-50 between the two parties. But the 50 Democratic senators effectively represent 186 million Americans, while the 50 Republican senators effectively represent 145 million. To win Senate control, Democrats need to win substantially more than half of the nationwide votes in Senate elections. This situation has led to racial inequality in political representation. The residents of small states, granted extra influence by the Constitution, are disproportionately white, while large states are home to many more Asian American, Black and Latino voters.

Currently, one senator represents about 19,600,000 people in California, while in Wyoming, one senator represents about 290,000 people. What are the effects of widely different representation in the Senate? Should unequal representation in the Senate be addressed, and if yes, how?

We thank all of the students who shared their headlines. Here are some shout-outs for great headlines: “The Inequality of “Equal Representation” by Gwen of Pennsylvania; “Wyoming Voters Have More Power Than You. Here’s Why” by Virginia of Eaglecrest High School in Aurora, Colo.; “US Political Representation: Balanced or Broken?” by Anna of Andover, Mass.; “Is Senate Representation Really Representative?” by Emily of Academy of Saint Elizabeth in Morristown, N.J.; “Small States, Big Influence: How Much Is a Vote Worth?” by Joshua from Perth Amboy High School in New Jersey and “Citizens Per Senator. Does Your Vote Count?” by Emmerson and “How Does Population Affect Voter Representation?’ by Alexandrai, both of Pewaukee High School in Wisconsin.

You may want to think about these additional questions:

You can calculate the Senate voter representation for your state. Obtain the population here and the ethnic and racial breakdown here . With two senators per state, how many voters per senator does your state have? To calculate the number of voters by ethnic or racial group, multiply this number by the ethnic or racial group’s share of the state’s population to determine the representation for each group and round to the nearest integer. What do you think of the difference in representation between Wyoming and your state?

This infographic came from the article which also focuses on how the divergence of the popular vote and the Electoral College vote challenges democracy. After reading the article and examining its infographics, what is your opinion of this divergence and how it is affecting our country?

The article also includes bubble charts (see Stat Nugget below) for all national elections from 1988 – 2020. Here are the graphs for 1988 and 2020 but you can see all of the graphs in the article .

For each graph:

What data are displayed in these bubble graphs? How do these data relate to the above Senate Representation by State infographic?

Create a headline that captures the main idea of the bubble graphs.

Keep noticing and wondering. We continue to welcome your online responses.

We’ll host live moderation for our next graph, which explores the question of whether college athletes should be paid, on Wednesday, Nov. 16. By subscribing to the Learning Network newsletter here , you can receive notices of the “What’s Going On in This Graph?” releases on Fridays preceding Wednesday’s moderation. In the meantime, keep noticing and wondering.

Stat Nuggets for “ ‘A Crisis Coming’: The Twin Threats to American Democracy ”

Below, we define mathematical and statistical terms and how they relate to this graph. To see the archives of all Stat Nuggets with links to their graphs, go to this index .

INFOGRAPHIC

An infographic (combines the words “information” and “graphic”) is a visual representation of information, including data and text. Infographics can make seeing patterns in data clearer.

The Senate Representation by State infographic displays the representation of the voters per senator. This number is subdivided by ethnic and racial groups according to the U.S. census and the American Community Survey. The base representation is one senator for Wyoming, which has the smallest state population. According to the infographic, one voter in Wyoming has similar representation in the Senate, for example, to six voters from Connecticut and 59 voters from California.

BUBBLE CHART

A bubble chart displays the value of a quantitative variable as a bubble along an axis that represents a second quantitative variable. The diameter of the bubble is proportionate to the value of one of the variables. The value of the second variable is represented by the position of the bubble along the horizontal axis. This type of bubble chart is a variation of a dot plot with data points replaced by bubbles.

In the Vote Margins by State graphs, each bubble represents a state. The diameter of the bubble represents each state’s share of the national population. The horizontal axis represents the vote margin between Democrats and Republicans for the 1988 and 2020 elections. For example, Wyoming is represented by the bubble furthest to the right on the graph. Its diameter is small since its population of about 584,000 is equal to 0.2 percent of the U.S. population. For 2020, the number line displays that the vote margin was about 43 percent in favor of Republicans (70% voted Republican – 27% voted Democratic = 43% Republican margin).

The graph for “What’s Going On in This Graph?” is selected in partnership with Sharon Hessney. Ms. Hessney wrote the “reveal” and Stat Nuggets with Roxy Peck, professor emerita, California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, and moderates online with Chris Luzniak, a math teacher and consultant in Columbus, Ohio, and author of “Up for Debate.”

• See all graphs in this series or collections of 60 of our favorite graphs, 28 graphs that teach about inequality and 24 graphs about climate change .

• View our archives that link to all past releases, organized by topic , graph type and Stat Nugget .

• Learn more about the notice and wonder teaching strategy from this 5-minute video and how and why other teachers are using this strategy from our on-demand webinar .

• Sign up for our free weekly Learning Network newsletter so you never miss a graph. Graphs are always released by the Friday before the Wednesday live-moderation to give teachers time to plan ahead.

• Go to the American Statistical Association K-12 website , which includes teacher statistics resources, Census in the Schools student-generated data, professional development opportunities, and more.

Students 13 and older in the United States and the Britain, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Sorry, we did not find any matching results.

We frequently add data and we're interested in what would be useful to people. If you have a specific recommendation, you can reach us at [email protected] .

We are in the process of adding data at the state and local level. Sign up on our mailing list here to be the first to know when it is available.

Search tips:

• Check your spelling

• Try other search terms

• Use fewer words

Representation in the Electoral College: How do states compare?

The 2020 election will be the last of the decade before electoral votes are reallocated based on Census results. See how the current distribution of the nation’s 538 electoral votes compares to the number of people living in all 50 states and Washington, DC.

Published on Thu, August 13, 2020 2:49PM PDT | Updated Tue, February 6, 2024 12:54PM PST

How does the Electoral College work?

Every four years, 538 electors hailing from all 50 states plus Washington, DC cast their votes for president and vice president of the United States. A candidate needs a majority of 270 electoral votes to win each race. In this system, known as the Electoral College , each state gets the same number of electors as it has members of Congress — one for each member in the House of Representatives and one for each of the state’s two senators. This means that each state is guaranteed a minimum of three electors, regardless of population size. It also means that there is always a total of 538 electors, or equivalently, 538 electoral votes — that’s the sum of 435 voting members of the House, 100 senators, and three electors assigned to Washington, DC.

So, when voters cast ballots for president and vice president on Election Day, they’re actually voting for a slate of electors who have pledged to vote for their favored candidates. Most states (with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska) use a “winner-take-all” system of choosing electors, meaning that — assuming electors vote according to their pledges — all of the state’s electoral votes are cast for the candidate that wins the majority of the state’s popular vote.

Electoral votes and population: Why one electoral vote accounts for 193,000 people in Wyoming and over 700,000 people in Texas or California.

Generally, states that are home to more people control more electoral votes. California — the largest state by population — has 55 electoral votes, while Wyoming — the smallest — has the minimum allocation of three. But because electoral votes are allocated according to seats in Congress, where each state holds two Senate seats regardless of population size, electoral representation varies quite a bit across states.

One way to think about electoral representation is to consider how many people each electoral vote represents, based on a state’s population. According to 2018 population estimates, one electoral vote in Wyoming accounts for around 193,000 people, while a vote in Texas or California accounts for over 700,000. For context, if all 538 electoral votes were distributed evenly among the US population, each vote would represent about 607,000 people.

Another way of thinking about electoral representation is to consider the difference between a state’s share of the nation’s total population and its share of all electoral votes. For example, Wyoming makes up about 0.18% of the US population but controls 0.56% of all electoral votes. This difference may seem minuscule, but it translates to approximately two additional electoral votes for Wyoming, relative to its population share. If Wyoming’s electoral share aligned with its share of the US population, it would have 0.18% of all 538 votes, which is about one electoral vote — but because votes are allocated based on seats in Congress, the state has the minimum of three votes in the Electoral College.

On the other end of the spectrum, California represents 12.1% of the US population and has 10.2% of all electoral votes. This means California controls roughly 10 fewer votes in the Electoral College than it would if votes were allocated based on population alone (because 12.1% of the total 538 votes is about 65 electoral votes, but California currently controls 55). For context, 10 votes is equivalent to the entire electoral share assigned to states like Maryland, Minnesota, and Missouri. It’s also the same as the combined vote shares of Iowa and Maine, or of all three states of Montana, Delaware, and Idaho.

Total population helps determine how electoral votes are allocated, but eligible voters determine how the votes are cast.

These examples demonstrate electoral representation based on each state’s share of the national population, and that’s because states receive representation in both the House of Representatives and the Electoral College according to the total resident population , not just according to how many voters live in the state. The resident population is all who live in the state at the time of the Census count, including both citizen and noncitizen residents, and both adults and children. Still, another way to view electoral representation is to see how the distribution of electoral votes compares to the distribution of eligible voters among states.

When determined according to the voting-eligible population nationwide, electoral representation looks a bit more equal across states. In particular, the two most populous states — California and Texas — are underrepresented by fewer votes when looking at representation among the voting-eligible population instead of the total resident population. These large states have higher proportions of non-citizen adults and a lower median age than many other states, so their shares of the voting-eligible population are smaller than their shares of the total US population. For example, California makes up 12.1% of the total US population but 11% of the citizen voting-age population; so by total population share, the state is about 10 votes underrepresented in the Electoral College, but by its share of eligible voters, the difference is closer to four votes.

What if electoral vote shares were equal to population shares in every state?

It’s important to note that even if electoral votes were allocated exactly according to each state’s share of the US population or share of eligible voters, the electoral process would not resemble a national popular vote . This is because of the winner-take-all rule for choosing state electors, currently used by 48 states and Washington, DC. According to this rule, all electoral votes go toward the candidate that earns the most votes in the state’s general election; therefore, votes cast for any other candidate do not earn any of the state’s electoral votes.

In other words, according to the winner-take-all policy, a candidate may earn 49.9% of a state’s popular vote and earn 0% of the state’s electoral votes. This explains how a candidate may win the national popular vote but, by failing to earn 270 electoral votes, may still lose the presidential election in the Electoral College — a scenario which has occurred in five US presidential elections, including the most recent election in 2016.

After this November's election, electoral votes will be reallocated based on Census results.

The total of 538 electoral votes is fixed, but how these votes are distributed between states can change as a result of the decennial Census . Every 10 years, the results of the Census determine how seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned, and states may gain or lose electoral votes accordingly. This November’s election will be the last of the decade before the reallocation of electoral votes.

SIGN UP FOR THE NEWSLETTER

Data delivered to your inbox.

Keep up with the latest data and most popular content.

Founders Online --> [ Back to normal view ]

Constitutional convention. remarks on equality of representation of the states in the congress, [29 june 1787], constitutional convention. remarks on equality of representation of the states in the congress 1.

[Philadelphia, June 29, 1787]

Mr. Hamilton 2 observed the individuals forming political Societies modify their rights differently, with regard to suffrage. Examples of it are found in all the States. In all of them some individuals are deprived of the right altogether, not having the requisite qualifications of property. In some of the States the right of suffrage is allowed in some cases and refused in others. To vote for a member in one branch, a certain quantum of property, to vote for a member in another branch of the Legislature, a higher quantum of property is required. In like manner States may modify their right of suffrage differently, the larger exercising a larger, the smaller a smaller share of it. But as States are a collection of individual men which ought we to respect most, the rights of the people composing them, or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition. Nothing could be more preposterous or absurd than to sacrifice the former to the latter. It has been sd. that if the smaller States renounce their equality , they renounce at the same time their liberty . The truth is it is a contest for power, not for liberty. Will the men composing the small States be less free than those composing the larger. The State of Delaware having 40,000 souls will lose power , if she has 1/10 only of the votes allowed to Pa. having 400,000: but will the people of Del: be less free , if each citizen has an equal vote with each citizen of Pa. He admitted that common residence within the same State would produce a certain degree of attachment; and that this principle might have a certain influence in public affairs. He thought however that this might by some precautions be in a great measure excluded: and that no material inconvenience could result from it, as there could not be any ground for combination among the States whose influence was most dreaded. The only considerable distinction of interests, lay between the carrying & non-carrying States, which divide instead of uniting the largest States. No considerable inconvenience had been found from the division of the State of N. York into different districts of different sizes.

Some of the consequences of a dissolution of the Union, and the establishment of partial confederacies, had been pointed out. He would add another of a most serious nature. Alliances will immediately be formed with different rival & hostile nations of Europes, who will foment disturbances among ourselves, and make us parties to all their own quarrels. Foreign Nations having American dominions are & must be jealous of us. Their representatives betray the utmost anxiety for our fate, & for the result of this meeting, which must have an essential influence on it. It had been said that respectability in the eyes of foreign Nations was not the object at which we aimed; that the proper object of republican Government was domestic tranquility & happiness. This was an ideal distinction. No Governmt. could give us tranquility & happiness at home, which did not possess sufficient stability and strength to make us respectable abroad. This was the critical moment for forming such a Government. We should run every risk in trusting to future amendments. As yet we retain the habits of union. We are weak & sensible of our weakness. Henceforward the motives will become feebler, and the difficulties greater. It is a miracle that we were now here exercising our tranquil & free deliberations on the subject. It would be madness to trust to future miracles. A thousand causes must obstruct a reproduction of them. 3

Hunt and Scott, Debates description begins Gaillard Hunt and James Brown Scott, eds., The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Which Framed the Constitution of the United States of America. Reported by James Madison (New York, 1920). description ends , 186–87.

1 .  The remarks attributed to H by Robert Yates are as follows:

The course of my experience in human affairs might perhaps restrain me from saying much on this subject. I shall, however, give birth to some of the observations I have made during the course of this debate. The gentleman from Maryland [Luther Martin] has been at great pains to establish positions which are not denied. Many of them, as drawn from the best writers on government, are become almost self-evident principles. But I doubt the propriety of his application of those principles in the present discussion. He deduces from them the necessity that states entering into a confederacy must retain the equality of votes—this position cannot be correct—Facts plainly contradict it. The parliament of Great Britain asserted a supremacy over the whole empire, and the celebrated Judge Blackstone labors for the legality of it, although many parts were not represented. This parliamentary power we opposed as contrary to our colonial rights. With that exception, throughout that whole empire, it is submitted to. May not the smaller and greater states so modify their respective rights as to establish the general interest of the whole, without adhering to the right of equality? Strict representation is not observed in any of the state governments. The senate of New-York are chosen by persons of certain qualifications, to the exclusion of others. The question, after all is, is it our interest in modifying this general government to sacrifice individual rights to the preservation of the rights of an artificial being, called states? There can be no truer principle than this—that every individual of the community at large has an equal right to the protection of government. If therefore three states contain a majority of the inhabitants of America, ought they to be governed by a minority? Would the inhabitants of the great states ever submit to this? If the smaller states maintain this principle, through a love of power, will not the larger, from the same motives, be equally tenacious to preserve their power? They are to surrender their rights—for what? for the preservation of an artificial being. We propose a free government—Can it be so if partial distinctions are maintained? I agree with the gentleman from Delaware [George Read], that if the state governments are to act in the general government, it affords the strongest reason for exclusion. In the state of New-York, five counties form a majority of representatives, and yet the government is in no danger, because the laws have a general operation. The small states exaggerate their danger, and on this ground contend for an undue proportion of power. But their danger is increased, if the larger states will not submit to it. Where will they form new alliances for their support? Will they do this with foreign powers? Foreigners are jealous of our encreasing greatness, and would rejoice in our distractions. Those who have had opportunities of conversing with foreigners respecting sovereigns in Europe, have discovered in them an anxiety for the preservation of our democratic governments, probably for no other reason, but to keep us weak. Unless your government is respectable, foreigners will invade your rights; and to maintain tranquillity, it must be respectable—even to observe neutrality, you must have a strong government. I confess our present situation is critical. We have just finished a war which has established our independency, and loaded us with a heavy debt. We have still every motive to unite for our common defence. Our people are disposed to have a good government, but this disposition may not always prevail. It is difficult to amend confederations—it has been attempted in vain, and it is perhaps a miracle that we are now met. We must therefore improve the opportunity, and render the present system as perfect as possible. Their good sense, and above all, the necessity of their affairs, will induce the people to adopt it.” ( Yates, Secret Proceedings and Debates description begins Robert Yates, Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Convention Assembled at Philadelphia, in the Year 1787, For the Purpose of Forming the Constitution of The United States of America (Albany, 1821). description ends , 185–87.)

John Lansing, Jr., made the following record of H’s remarks:

“Hamilton—In the Course of his Experience he has found it difficult to convince Persons who have been in certain Habits of thinking. Some desultory Remarks may not be improper. We can modify Representation as we think proper.

“The Question simply is, what is general Interest. Larger States may submit to an Inequality of Representation to their Prejudice for a short Time—but it cannot be durable. This is a Contest for Power—the People of all States have an Inequality of Representation.

“So long as State Governments prevail State Influence will be perpetuated.

“There may be a Distinction of Interests but it arises merely from the carrying and noncarrying States.

“Those Persons who have had frequent Opportunities of conversing with the Representatives of European Sovereignties know they are very anxious to perpetuate our Democracies. This is easily accounted for—Our weakness will make us more manageable. Unless your Government is respectable abroad your Tranquility cannot be preserved.

“This is a critical Moment of American Liberty—We are still too weak to exist without Union. It is a Miracle that we have met—they seldom occur.

“We must devise a System on the Spot—It ought to be strong and nervous, hoping that the good Sense and principally the Necessity of our Affairs will reconcile the People to it.” ( Notes of John Lansing description begins Joseph R. Strayer, ed., The Delegate from New York or Proceedings of the Federal Convention of 1787 from the Notes of John Lansing, Jr. (Princeton, 1939). description ends , 92–94.)

Rufus King’s version of H’s remarks reads:

“Men are naturally equal, and societies or States, when fully independent, are also equal. It is as reasonable, and may be as expedient, that States should form Leagues or compacts, and lessen or part with their national Equality, as that men should form the social compact and, in doing so, lessen or surrender the natural Equality of men. This is done in every society; and the grant to the society affects Persons and Property; age, minority & Estates are all affected.

“A Man may not become an Elector or Elected, unless of a given age & having a certain Estate. Let the People be represented according to numbers, the People will be free: every Office will be equally open to all and the majority of the People are to make the Laws. Yet it is said that the States will be destroyed & the People will be Slaves—this is not so. The People are free, at the expense of an artificial & ideal Equality of the States.” ( King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King description begins Charles R. King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King (New York, 1894). description ends , I, 610–11.)

2 .  On June 27, the Convention took up the resolutions of the Virginia Plan dealing with representation in the two houses of the legislature. The plan proposed that representation in both houses be in proportion to population. The debate was continued on June 28 and 29.

3 .  H left the Constitutional Convention on June 29. Although he did not again take part in the debates until August 13, he probably returned soon after August 6. In his first speech of June 23, 1788 , to the New York Ratifying Convention he stated: “Some private business calling me to New-York, I left the Convention for a few days: On my return, I found a plan, reported by the committee of details; and soon after, a motion was made to increase the number of representatives.” On August 6 the Committee of Detail reported a plan of a constitution. It was not until September 8, however, that a motion was made to increase the number of representatives. It was probably this plan and motion to which H referred in his speech of June 23, 1788, before the New York Ratifying Convention.

Index Entries

You are looking at.

• Election Integrity
• Immigration

Political Thought

• American History
• Conservatism
• Progressivism

International

• Global Politics
• Middle East

Government Spending

• Budget and Spending

Energy & Environment

• Environment

Legal and Judicial

• Crime and Justice
• Second Amendment
• The Constitution

National Security

• Cybersecurity

Domestic Policy

• Government Regulation
• Health Care Reform
• Marriage and Family
• Religious Liberty
• International Economies
• Markets and Finance

Prohibition on Amendment: Equal Suffrage in the Senate

The heritage guide to the constitution.

...no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article V specifies the means by which the Constitution can be amended. It ends by forbidding amendments that would repeal the language in Article I, Section 9, which prohibits a ban on the importation of slaves prior to 1808, or the language in Article I, Section 3, which provides for equal representation of the states in the Senate. These are the only textually entrenched provisions of the Constitution. The first prohibition was absolute but of limited duration—it was to be in force for only twenty years; the second was less absolute— “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate”—but permanent.

The first unamendable provision of the Constitution was part of what Frederick Douglass called the “scaffolding” necessary for the construction and adoption of the Constitution’s “magnificent structure, to be removed as soon as the building was completed.” The second unamendable provision shows how seriously the smaller states were committed to protecting the “original federal design.” Its sponsor was Roger Sherman of Connecticut, architect of what is often called the Connecticut Compromise or “the Great Compromise,” whereby states were to be represented proportionally in the House and equally in the Senate. Two days before the convention ended, on September 15, Sherman “expressed his fears that three fourths of the States might be brought to do things fatal to particular States, as abolishing them altogether or depriving them of their equality in the Senate.” He therefore proposed language barring amending the Constitution to deprive states of their equal suffrage. When his motion failed, Sherman indicated how profoundly concerned he was by proposing the elimination of Article V altogether. This motion also failed, but it prompted Gouverneur Morris to propose the language ultimately adopted by the Constitutional Convention. As James Madison wrote in his notes, “This motion being dictated by the circulating murmurs of the small States was agreed to without debate, no one opposing it, or on the question saying no.”

The provision does more than protect the equal representation of small states. As Madison noted in The Federalist No. 39, it ensures a polity of mixed sovereignty, one in which the states are an integral part of the federal government. This, of course, is precisely why those who do not think the Constitution “democratic” enough would wish to remove that portion of the Constitution. They argue variously that Article V can be amended through the convention mechanism; or by the people as a whole as stated in the Preamble; or, more brazenly, by first amending out the provision of the Fifth Article, and then requiring the Senate to be apportioned by population. Henry Monaghan points out that such proposals are inconsistent with the vision of the Framers and would undermine the structural plan of the Constitution. That plan is an integrated and dynamic federalism.

As Chief Justice Salmon Chase declared in Texas v. White (1869):

Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.

Denying the states their intended role in the federal government by abolishing their equality in the Senate would destroy the grounding of the Union: “without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States,” Texas v. White , citing Lane County v. Oregon (1869). Moreover, as the text itself stands, at most the provision could only technically be voided by the unanimous consent of all the states.

This provision has been seldom invoked. Most recently, it has been employed by those opposed to proposed constitutional amendments that would give the District of Columbia full representation in Congress. Their argument is that an amendment that would allow the district—a nonstate—to have two senators would deprive the states of their equal suffrage in the Senate and would therefore require unanimous ratification by all the states. Others have suggested that the provision would void a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to pass tax increases.

Ralph Rossum

• Further Reading
• Related Essays

Akhil R. Amar, The Consent of the Governed: Constitutional Amendment Outside Article V , 94 Colum. L. Rev. 457 (1994)

Lynn A. Baker, New Frontiers of Federalism: Federalism: The Argument from Article V , 13 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 923 (1997)

Henry P. Monaghan, We the Peoples, Original Understanding, and Constitutional Amendment , 96 Colum. L. Rev. 121 (1996)

Eric A. Posner & Adrian Vermeule, Legislative Entrenchment: A Reappraisal , 111 Yale L.J. 1665 (2002)

John O. McGinnis & Michael B. Rappaport, Symmetric Entrenchment: A Constitutional and Normative Theory, 89 VA. L. REV. 385 (2003)

Stuart Sierk, Retrenchment on Entrenchment , 71 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 231 (2003)

Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 71 (1869)

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869)

Subscribe to email updates

© 2024, The Heritage Foundation

Watch CBS News

Minnesota House passes equal rights constitutional amendment with protections for abortion rights, LGBTQ Minnesotans

By Caroline Cummings

Updated on: May 19, 2024 / 7:39 PM CDT / CBS Minnesota

ST. PAUL, Minn. — After delays due to prolonged debates on other legislation , the Minnesota House early Sunday approved an amendment that would enshrine equal rights in the state constitution, including protections for LGTBQ Minnesotans and abortion rights.

The equal rights amendment states that "the state shall not discriminate against any person in intent or effect on account of" race, color, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, gender identity. It also protects "making and effectuating decisions about all matters relating to one's own pregnancy or decision whether to become or remain pregnant," which would bolster abortion rights.

If it passes the Senate, the question of whether to amend the constitution would go before voters in 2026.

Final passage in the House came six days after DFL leaders pledged the measure would get a vote. A filibuster by Republicans pushed the discussion until Friday and over the course of the weekend, they paused debate to pass other bills and then restarted it, before it finally cleared the House early Sunday morning.

"We want to make sure that as Minnesotans, we're valuing each other by prohibiting discrimination. We must codify protections into the Constitution," Rep. Kaohly Vang Her, DFL-St. Paul, the proposal's author, said. "Case law and statutes are subject to political winds and the makeup of the political leanings of judges. Rights should not hinge on these changes."

Republicans condemn adding protections for abortion rights, which were not included in the ERA that the Senate passed last year with bipartisan support. They believe there should be two separate questions before voters — one on equal rights and another on abortion.

GOP members also raised concern about "age" and "religion" being excluded from the protected classes listed in the amendment.

"Groups of people who are protected in our Human Rights Act have been left out of the constitutional amendment," said Rep. Anne Neu Brindley, R-North Branch. "Democrats literally chose to leave out groups of people on purpose from protection in the constitution."

Several amendments to add to or change the scope of the ERA — like just protections on the basis of sex — failed to get enough support to pass.

The ERA will now be sent back to the Minnesota Senate, where its fate is unknown. DFL Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy on Friday did not commit that her caucus — which has just a one-seat majority — supports the new language moving in the House.

"I want to see what they pass in order to know if we can support it. We have spent a lot of time on the new language. We've had a number of conversations as members about what that means," she told reporters Friday morning. "So we're gonna see what they do. We're going to see if they take amendments, and we'll make a decision after that."

Before voters can weigh in, the measure needs to clear the Senate with just hours to go before the legislature must adjourn the regular session on Monday. But lawmakers only have until just before midnight Sunday to approve legislation.

The rest of the agenda in the final hours is in question, following a 10-hour recess in the Senate Sunday as leaders worked to strike a last-minute deal to pay drivers more and keep Uber and Lyft from exiting the state . That kept them from passing other bills Democrats in charge want to check off their list this year.

Murphy late Saturday night did not answer how her caucus would clear the remaining bills before they must end and Gov. Tim Walz did not say if a special session is in play. Among the proposals in doubt are legislation legalizing sports betting and a bonding bill supporting local infrastructure projects — which needs three-fifths majority to pass, requiring Republican support.

GOP leaders said they wanted the DFL to reverse course on the ERA and other controversial bills in order to get their vote on bonding. But House Speaker Melissa Hortman Thursday said Democrats would not bargain with the equal rights amendment.

"If Republicans are conditioning their support for our bonding bill on denying civil rights to [transgender] Minnesotans, then we won't have a bonding bill," she said.

• Minnesota Legislature

Caroline Cummings is an Emmy-winning reporter with a passion for covering politics, public policy and government. She is thrilled to join the WCCO team.

Featured Local Savings

More from cbs news.

2024 Minnesota legislative session comes to chaotic end

Rideshare drivers celebrate deal struck by Minnesota leaders, but fight is far from over

DFL leaders, Gov. Tim Walz say they have a deal to pay drivers more, keep Uber and Lyft operating in Minnesota after threats to exit

Search continues for 2 missing canoeists in northeastern Minnesota, parts of Boundary Waters closed

Education Commentary

Let’s Put Suspension or Expulsion Back on Table for Violent College Students

  Politics News

‘A Travesty of Justice’: House Speaker Dissects the Left’s ‘Lawfare’ Campaign Against Trump

Education News

Northwestern U. May Have Broken Federal Law by Failing to Report Crimes During Anti-Israel Protests

International    Analysis

Iran’s President Is Dead. What Happens Now?

    Security News

Congress Seeks Answers to ‘Unprecedented Surge’ of Chinese Nationals Arriving at Border

  Law News

Why Biden’s Border Crisis Challenges Police in Every State

   Security Commentary

Unprecedented Surge in Chinese Illegal Immigration Raises Security Concerns: The BorderLine

  Society Commentary

SOCIETAL ROT, Part 3: How Blue Cities’ Flouting of Federal Immigration Laws Has Proved Fatal

   Society Commentary

Who Benefits From Destabilization of America?

  Energy Commentary

Forget Tariffs: Biden Should Look to Domestic Mining to Thwart Chinese EVs

Pittsburgh Provides Example of How Biden Energy Policies Help China

  Security News

Senate Will Try Again to Pass Border Bill, Schumer Says

  Economy Commentary

These 2 Bipartisan Proposals Would Hold Presidents Accountable for ‘Improper’ Payments

Biden Invokes Privilege, a Taxpayer-Funded ‘Catch and Kill’ Operation, to Block Release of Special Counsel Interview

Biden Education Department Shared Activists’ Memo on Mobilizing Dem-Leaning Voters

  Politics Commentary

Will Democrats Pay a Price for Their Crumbling Lawfare Strategy Against Trump?

Veteran Prosecutor Testifies Michael Cohen Admitted He Had ‘Nothing Truthful’ Implicating Trump

  Society Analysis

EXCLUSIVE: Federal Farm Credit Agency Plows Ahead With DEI, ‘Queer’ Farming 

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ’s Kristen Clarke Testified She Was Never Arrested. Court Records and Text Messages Indicate She Was.

EXCLUSIVE: She Survived a Death Camp. Facing Biden DOJ Charges, She Is Prepared to Die in Prison

   Politics News

EXCLUSIVE: Congressman Calls on House to Pass Bill Banning Earmarks

International   Commentary

US Must Oppose International Criminal Court Bid to Prosecute Israeli Prime Minister, Defense Chief

  Law Commentary

Hard to Argue With Logic of 13 Judges Who Say They Won’t Hire Columbia Grads

Her Daughter Was Harassed By a Boy on the Girls’ Team. Now, She’s Speaking Out to Save Title IX

Education   Analysis

Parents Are Winning Education Revolution With School Choice, Corey DeAngelis Says

  Politics Analysis

Faith and Politics: An Insider’s View From Former Trump Aide Cliff Sims

Law Commentary

A Bill to Ensure Fair Representation for American Citizens

Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky / May 09, 2024

California probably would lose at least three seats in the U.S. House of Representatives if both legal and illegal aliens weren't counted to determine how many House member each state gets. (Photo illustration: MCCAIG/Getty Images)

Get your FREE digital copy of The Heritage Foundation’s Founders’ Almanac.

The House of Representatives finally acted Wednesday to remedy an injustice that has been getting worse as the number of illegal aliens coming into the United States has skyrocketed: the distortion caused by including noncitizens when determining how many House members each state gets.

The House passed HR 7109, the Equal Representation Act , to mandate a citizenship question on the census form and use of only the citizen population in the apportionment formula for representation applied after every census.

Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates an “actual Enumeration” of the U.S. population every 10 years. That enumeration is used to determine the number of members in the House to which each state is entitled.

Because Congress limited the size of the House to 435 members in 1929 by passing the Permanent Apportionment Act , those 435 representatives are divided among the states.

Reapportionment after the 2020 census gave additional seats to six states: Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas. It also reduced the number of seats held by seven states: California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

But that reapportionment was based on the country’s total population, which includes aliens who are here both legally and illegally even though they have no right or ability to participate in our democratic political process.

Keep in mind that reapportionment also affects the outcome of presidential races, since this same apportionment determines how many votes a state has in the Electoral College. Under Section 1 of Article II, the number of Electoral College votes for each state is the total of its two U.S. senators and the number of its representatives in the House.

The Trump administration unsuccessfully tried to add a citizenship question back to the 2020 census form; the question first appeared in the 1820 census but wasn’t included in more recent years.

As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in 2019 in Department of Commerce v. New York , such “demographic questions have been asked in every census since 1790, and questions about citizenship in particular have been asked for nearly as long.” In fact, the high court noted, the Constitution “vests Congress with virtually unlimited discretion in conducting” the census.

Although the Supreme Court specifically held that the Constitution’s enumeration clause “permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary [of Commerce], to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire,” it didn’t allow the Trump administration to go forward with adding a citizenship question. (The U.S. Census Bureau, which conducts the census, is part of the Commerce Department.)

Instead, the court held that the commerce secretary had not provided a sufficient explanation for his actions under applicable administrative law. There was not enough time after this decision for a more extensive explanation to be provided by the secretary before the census form needed to be printed and distributed, so the 2020 census didn’t include a citizenship question.

But the Supreme Court’s decision makes it clear that HR 7109’s restoration of a citizenship question to the census is well within the authority of Congress, as well as the commerce secretary, under existing law.

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868, provides that representatives in the House “shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.”

Congress implemented this requirement in U.S. law ( 2 U.S.C. § 2a ). HR 7109, the bill passed by the House, would amend Section 2a to exclude not only “Indians not taxed,” but also “individuals who are not citizens of the United States.”

How bad is the distortion in representation in the House caused by including aliens, both legal and illegal, in apportionment? A 2019 study by the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that if aliens were removed from the apportionment population, these eight states would each gain a congressional seat: Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Alabama, Idaho, West Virginia, and Rhode Island. California alone would lose three seats, since it has the largest population of illegal aliens in the country.

Similarly, a 2015 report by the Congressional Research Service estimated that apportionment based on citizen population, excluding aliens, would shift seven congressional seats. Gaining a seat: Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Virginia. California would lose four seats.

Given the unprecedented number of aliens allowed into the U.S. illegally by the Biden administration since January 2021, the distortion in representation no doubt grew even worse since these reports were issued.

Opponents of this commonsense change may try to argue that the language in Section 2, that apportionment is based on the “number of persons in each State,” means that aliens must be included in the apportionment calculation.

However, the term “persons” historically has been interpreted in this context, as the Supreme Court explained in 1992 in Franklin v. Massachusetts , to mean an individual who not only has a physical presence but “some element of allegiance or enduring tie to a place.” 

That is why the Census Bureau, for example, doesn’t include aliens who visit the U.S. for a vacation or a business trip in the population count, since they have no political or legal allegiance to any state or the federal government, and their only “enduring tie” is to their native or home countries. However, the Census Bureau shouldn’t include any aliens in the population count for apportionment purposes.

But Democrats apparently don’t want to know how many aliens are in the country.  And they want the votes of U.S. citizens diluted by aliens.

The House vote Wednesday on the Equal Representation Act was strictly along party lines, with 206 Republicans voting for it and 202 Democrats voting against it. The Senate version of the bill faces tougher going in the Democrat-run upper chamber.

Including aliens in apportionment dilutes the votes and political representation of American citizens. It unfairly gives political power to states such as California that deliberately obstruct enforcement of our immigration laws and implement sanctuary policies intended to attract illegal aliens who endanger the safety of the public and cost taxpayers huge amounts of money. 

Including aliens in apportionment also cheats states and voters not only in the House of Representatives but through distortion of the Electoral College system used to decide presidential races.

It is time for this fundamental injustice to stop.

Join the millions of people who benefit from The Daily Signal’s fair, accurate, trustworthy reporting with direct access to:

• Intelligence from inside Washington
• Deep policy understanding from over 100 experts

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.

U.S. Rep. Fitzgerald: Votes to pass Equal Representation Act

• May 10, 2024

Home » Press Releases » U.S. Rep. Fitzgerald: Votes to pass Equal Representation Act

WASHINGTON, DC  – Congressman Scott Fitzgerald (WI-05) issued the following statement after voting to pass H.R. 7109, the  Equal Representation Act . This legislation would mandate that the Census Bureau reinstate the citizenship question on the decennial census and allow only U.S. citizens to count toward determining the number of congressional seats.

“According to a 2022 Census Bureau estimate, there are over 22 million noncitizens in the United States, but those individuals are still counted the same as legal citizens toward the apportionment of congressional districts,”  said Rep. Fitzgerald.   “It’s absurd that noncitizens can serve as a deciding factor when determining electoral representation or federal resources. I was proud to vote in support of commonsense legislation today, the  Equal Representation Act , which ensures only U.S. citizens are counted when determining representation in the Census.”

Upcoming Events

Wispolitics dc breakfast with aau pollster ken goldstein, newsmaker luncheon with u.s. rep. gwen moore, wispolitics luncheon with uw experts on the national convention rhetoric, wispolitics luncheon with psc chair summer strand, the rnc in milwaukee — kickoff to a pivotal election year in wisconsin.

Order copies of the 2024 WisPolitics Directory

Read chapters on Wisconsin and Gov. Tony Evers