Electing the House by Jay K. Dow

Author:Jay K. Dow [Dow, Jay K.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Political Science, American Government, Legislative Branch, Political Process, Campaigns & Elections, National
ISBN: 9780700624102
Google: PYQZMQAACAAJ
Publisher: University Press of Kansas
Published: 2017-01-15T03:19:14+00:00

*Two minor party representatives are not included.

Source: Congressional Record.

Table 6.2 presents the votes on the May and January motions by representative party affiliation. Both votes show that Republicans were more likely to support the bill and Democrats to oppose it. The May vote recommitted the bill to the Census Committee by a narrow margin, with most Democrats opposing the bill and most Republicans supporting it.89 However, almost 40 percent of Republicans voted to kill the bill. Following removal of section 3 the chamber vote shifted decisively in favor of the apportionment act. Eighty percent of Republicans voted in favor of the bill, and it was the Democrats that divided, with about 40 percent favoring reapportionment when decoupled from districting. The January nearly two-to-one margin meant a reapportionment act was very likely to pass by the end of the year, provided it did not contain districting standards.

To substantiate the argument that stripping the compact, contiguous, and equal-population districting requirements facilitated passage of the permanent apportionment act, it is useful to analyze the votes on the motions to recommit the bill to committee. To do so, consider the subset of legislators who voted on both the May 1928 and January 1929 motions. There are 300 such representatives. For these legislators there are only four possible voting patterns. One could vote “yes” on both motions, “no” on both, “yes” on the first motion and “no” on the second, or “no” on the first motion and “yes” on the second. As one expects, the majority of legislators fall into the first two categories by consistently voting for or against the reapportionment act.90 Specifically, 115 representatives consistently opposed the bill by voting “yes” on both motions, while 137 consistently supported the bill by voting “no.” However, 45 representatives who supported recommittal in May switched their votes and opposed recommittal in January. By changing their votes these legislators provided the margin for eventual passage of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. Their characteristics, especially with respect to their states’ population and urbanization, most clearly show that the removal of the districting provisions drove reapportionment.

Table 6.3. Legislator Characteristics and Votes on the Motions to Recommit the Apportionment Act of 1929

Vote to

Vote Recommit

Vote to against in May and

Recommit Recommit Vote against

Chamber in May and in May and Recommit

Average January January in January

State Population 3.93 2.71 4.48 5.60

(Millions)

Urban Population 54.1 38.1 64.1 65.8

(Percentage)

N 300  115  137  45

Note: The table excludes three representatives who voted against recommittal in May and for recommittal in January. All differences from the chamber average are statistically significant at the 0.001 level (one tail t-test).

Source: Congressional Record.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.