One Person – One Vote
Apportionment.US has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi that alleges, instead of following the Constitution, Congress has allowed a system of representation where a vote in Mississippi is worth only about half a vote in Rhode Island or Iowa.
Because of the growth of population in the U.S. to more than 300 million, combined with a decision at the turn of the last century setting the number of U.S. representatives at 435, voters in the U.S. are not treated equally. The organization states on its website, "The inequality today is severe and unjust. The primary measure that the Supreme Court has used to determine voter equality is to compare the largest and smallest districts. According to the 2000 census, Montana was the most under-represented and Wyoming was the most over-represented. In simple terms, it took 1.83 Montana voters to equal just 1 Wyoming voter, which is grossly unfair. "The Supreme Court, in Karcher v. Daggett (1982), already has ruled that a deviation of 0.6984 percent, which is over 90 times smaller is unconstitutional.
The case was filed on behalf of voters in the most under-represented states, including Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, Delaware, and Utah. The defendants named are U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, Census Director Robert Groves, President Barack Obama, and the U,S, House Clerk Lorraine C. Miller, who has provided the documents allowing Mississippi 4 House seats, 1 to Montana, 3 to Utah, and 1 to South Dakota.
"The lawsuit argues that the provision in the United States Code that freezes the size of the House at 435 members is unconstitutional, egregiously violating the well-established principle of 'one person, one vote' affirmed in multiple Supreme Court decisions. At the state level, the implication of 'one person, one vote' means that each state must ensure a population variance of less than 1 percent across all its federal congressional districts so that voter equality is strictly maintained. At the national level, however, this principle has not been applied, and the population variance between the most under-represented congressional district and the most over-represented district exceeds 80 percent." Our Constitution was crafted around the idea that all citizens deserve an equal voice in the decisions of their government. If someone's vote in Iowa or Wyoming counts for more than mine, how is that equality?"
If the action is successful, there would be required a significant increase in the membership of the House of Representatives to meet the Constitution's requirement of "one person, one vote. This could result in the most significant change in the structure of the federal government in almost a century. The lawsuit seeks to shift power away from special interests and return it to the people.
Michael Farris, attorney for the plaintiffs, said, " By reducing the district size, we will get people with more focus on their jobs, loyalty to their own districts. In any event, we've got to obey the Constitution, which was carefully crafted under the principle that we were going to have equality in the House." The case is the first of its kind "seeking to correct inequality, which clearly violates the Framers' intent."
In 1790, each House member represented about 33,000 people. Today, that total is about 700,000, and growing, The 2000 apportionment population of the U.S. was 281,424,177, making the district size with 435 representatives 646,952 people. But in Wyoming, the district includes only 495,304 people and in Rhode Island each district had only 524,831. But Montana' district had 905,316 and in Delaware it was 785,068. Change is not unprecedented: the original House had just 65 representatives and it was modified as the population grew until 1911.
Large parliaments are not impossible. The House of Commons in Great Britain and the Bundestag in Germany each have over 600 members. Our population is greater, yet our representation is smaller than other western democracies.