Reforming congress

Sandy Levinson

There is a very interesting op-ed in today's NYTimes on Congress's dereliction of duty in not raising the number of members of the House of Representatives in almost 100 years (!!). The average district is now over 700,000, and Delaware and Montana a single-district states with over 900,000 population. The "cube-root law" of districting, which suggests that representatives bodies should the cube root of the total population, would generate a House of around 676 members. The authors of the op-ed, Dalton Conley and Jacqueline Stevens, note that a House with the same average population as was the case when it became a 435-member entity following the admission of Arizona and New Mexico in 1912, would have about 1500 members. One might well believe that that is too many.

Another Times article, titled "While the House is Abuzz, Senate Hits Snooze Button," concludes by noting the unanticipated "alliance" between Socialist Rep. Victor Berger, who in 1911 proposed abolishing the Senate, described as an "obstructive and useless body," and Republican Rep. Michele Bachman, who apparently suggested last week that the House should propose the same thing. (It would take a constitutional amendment, of course, but only a "regular" amendment, since abolition wouldn't violatel the "equality" provision of Article V requires unanimity to amend.) Perhaps this is an illustration of the "stopped clocks are right twice a day" principle, but I hope that this suggestion of Rep. Bachman's is actually discussed rather than being dismissed as simply loony. To be sure, I presume that her abolitionist instincts were dormant in the last session, when Republican mad-dogs in the Senate were able to wreak havoc against a Democratic House. And, all things considered, I do believe, as I've said on many previous occasion, that the country is far too large and diverse to be governed effectively by only one legislative house. But none of this vitiates Berger's observation about the Senate we have (as against other Senates that might well be designed). No doubt most readers of Balkinization applaud the "obstructive" role the Senate will play against the mad-dog House, but "we" should recognize that such applause carries a real cost in legitimizing what has become an indefensible institution.

Incidentally, returning to the theme of the first paragraph, Larry Sabato, whose valuable book (available online for $11.79) proposes many specific constitutional changes, advocates increasing the size of the Senate as well as the House, and I think he's clearly correct. Even assuming the present alloction of power, I'd rather there be 200 senators (with Wyoming having four of them) than the present 100.
Posted 12:06 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]