4-1: Bicameralism and Reapportionment

Big Idea: Constitutionalism Enduring Understanding: The republican ideal in the U.S. is manifested in the structure and operation of the legislative branch. Learning Objectives: Explain how the structure, powers, and functions of both houses of Congress affect the policymaking process. Explain how congressional behavior is influenced by election processes, partisanship, and divided government.

Overview Bicameral—two houses Not diverse House of Representatives Senate Not diverse Lawyers or businessmen White males prevalent Most elections leave the House and Senate fairly evenly split (data from 116th Congress)

Reasons Historical Experience British System House of Lords—upper house House of Commons—lower house Colonial/state legislatures bicameral House of Delegates VA Senate

Reasons Great Compromise Virginia Plan—bicameral/population New Jersey Plan—unicameral/equality Connecticut Plan—bicameral House—based on population Senate—each state receives two

Reasons Federalism House—represents people Senate—represents states Always elected by people Senate—represents states Originally appointed by state legislatures 17th Amendment Power fragmented between large and small states Protection of minority rights Slows legislative process Encourages deliberation and compromise

House Size and Apportionment Constitution No size limits Apportioned by population Every state guaranteed one seat Size capped at 435 Descriptive representation Voting Rights Act (1965) to encourage minority representation Majority minority districts

Reapportionment Definition Occurs every 10 years following census Increases or decreases number of seats held by a state Also affects Electoral College Occurs every 10 years following census

Districts Each district has one single-member Equal representation (about 730,000) Boundary lines drawn by state legislatures Importance of state majority party

Gerrymandering Definition Consequences Majority party redraws districts to ensure maximum number of seats Consequences Protects incumbents Discourages challengers Strengthens majority party Can increase or decrease minority representation

Limitations on Redistricting Supreme Court Decisions Baker v. Carr (1962)* districts as equal as possible Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) “one person, one vote” Shaw v. Reno (1993)* invalidated racially gerrymandered districts No guarantee of minority representation Descriptive representation not necessary

Limitations on Redistricting Requirements for Districts Equally populated Compact Contiguous Cannot dilute minority voting strength Gerrymandering still allowed for partisan purposes