|
|
|
|
|
|
by dragonwriter
424 days ago
|
|
|
> Huh, TIL the Constitution doesn’t require Congressional districts. True, but... > A state could technically switch to a model like this for assigning representatives at large. No, it can't because Congress itself is given the overriding power in the Constitution to regulate the "time, place, and manner" of elections to the House, and has exercised it to prohibit at-large districts (many times, with lax enforcement, but the most recent mandate, adopted in 1967, has not had the compliance problems the earlier ones often did.) The 1967 mandate was adopted under the dual specter of a some states failing to resolve districting controversies and potentially facing judicially-imposed at-large districts and several states having used at-large districts for non-federal elections to effectively disenfranchise Black voters and concerns that the same might be done to Congressional delegations as a way of blunting the impacts of new rules like the Voting Rights Act. Additional detail at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43739929 |
|
|