What I was referring to was an at-large seat IN ADDITION to a representational districted seat. if the population of a state means they only get one, then it's not "state-wide", it's "representational" - the state itself is one large district.
In the utah case (and those others) it *technically* means that some people have double-representation, and that is an utter violation of the spirit and intent of the House.
whether or not it has happened before is moot. tradition or heritage != constitutional, it merely means no one challenged it before. If i was alive at the time, i'd have argued against it then, too.
I also note that many of those cases were transitional: there was a gap in time between the federal government reacting to the census in allocating the seat and the federal government working with the states to redistrict. modern computer technology makes for much faster redistricting (gerrymandering).
I don't think you really can't count anything from before the 435 freeze as being relevant.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-02-23 02:42 pm (UTC)In the utah case (and those others) it *technically* means that some people have double-representation, and that is an utter violation of the spirit and intent of the House.
whether or not it has happened before is moot. tradition or heritage != constitutional, it merely means no one challenged it before. If i was alive at the time, i'd have argued against it then, too.
I also note that many of those cases were transitional: there was a gap in time between the federal government reacting to the census in allocating the seat and the federal government working with the states to redistrict. modern computer technology makes for much faster redistricting (gerrymandering).
I don't think you really can't count anything from before the 435 freeze as being relevant.