Ten-Year Itch

The House of Representatives normally reapportions its 435 seats according to population changes reflected in each national census. And the last census established an average state population increase of 18.5%. No fewer than 25 state's face the perils of reapportionment, either because they outstripped the average and gained seats, or because they fell below the average and lost.

Some states have already reapportioned with a minimum of confusion. Arizona laid out three congressional districts 14 years ago against the day the state outgrew its present two. This year, the Arizona legislature merely put the 1947 plan into effect, ignored the fact that the First District (Phoenix) has four times the population of the eight northern and eastern counties that comprise the new District Two. Maine, down from three Republican seats to two, simply split the state, left Incumbents Stanley Tupper and Peter A. Garland the problem of facing one another in the state's First District.

Eight Plus Three. In most states, however, party balance is close, and the consequent struggle fierce. Sometimes the tactics are outwardly subtle. New Jersey Republicans chivalrously agreed to give the state's 15th seat to booming Democratic Middlesex County (pop. 433,856), which deserved it. But by splitting Middlesex, the G.O.P. saved both Fifth District Republican Peter Frelinghuysen Jr. and Third District Republican James C. Auchincloss, who had shared not only Middlesex but also the inevitable danger of being defeated by its growing Democratic strength. More often, reapportionment is crude. North Carolina Democrats, obliged to cut twelve districts to eleven, worked a dachshund-shaped gerrymander (a system of redistricting named after Elbridge Gerry, who, as Governor of Massachusetts in 1812, designed a legislative district in the shape of a salamander) in the Piedmont area designed to chew up lone Republican Charles Jonas.

Crudest and cruelest of the current reapportionment battles, however, was in California. Because population in ten years had increased by a whopping 48.5%, the state gained eight additional House seats, the largest pickup of any single state. In control of the legislature for the first time in seventy years. California Democrats lovingly reworked boundary lines. Their handiwork ensures that all eight additional seats will probably be filled by Democrats. So will three other, normally Republican, districts, where lines were re-formed to include decisive numbers of Democrats. California Republicans, who worked much the same gerrymander ten years ago when they dominated the legislature, could only howl.

Feud & Whimsy. Some states, come November 1962, will rely on a constitutional safety valve: the at-large election. Hawaii, Texas, Michigan and Ohio, each with one additional Congressman to pick, will probably choose him by statewide election. But in other states, because redistricting is hopelessly snarled between a Governor and a legislature of different parties or because redistricting has been blocked by voter petitions, all Congressmen may be forced to run at large. Minnesota, losing one of nine, Pennsylvania (three of 30), Illinois (one of 25) and Arkansas (two of six) may all solve current impasses in this fashion. In 1962, as many as 84 Congressmen--a record number--may have to run at large unless the states resolve their problems.

Sam Says No. Congressional Leaders in Washington are understandably worried by this ten-year reapportionment itch. For one thing, some old stalwarts always disappear. One victim of the "Rockymandering" that New York Democrats charge Governor Nelson Rockefeller is planning to cover a two-seat loss will be Manhattan Democrat Alfred Santangelo, a hard-working and valuable agriculture expert, though he comes from East Harlem. And a handful of such changes can shade an entire Congress. Republicans, who will probably benefit as the outs in an off-year election, might well gain control of the House if the returns really run wild.

One alternative to reapportionment problems is an increase in House membership beyond the present 435. A pair of bills offering constitutional amendments to this effect have already been introduced. But no less a leader than Speaker Sam Rayburn has decreed that the House is large enough, quietly passed word to bottle up the bills. Result is that many a Congressman, his districts gerrymandered into new voter patterns, will watch his step until Election Day. Said one California Democrat last week: "If I knew where I stood, I could vote like a statesman. Instead I've got to tiptoe down the center aisle, this way and that. I'm a cracker-barrel Congressman, and I could have been a statesman."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.