State legislative chambers that use multi-member districts

Features of State Legislatures

Length of terms: Representatives • Senators How vacancies are filled in state legislatures States with a full-time legislature Legislatures with multi-member districts State legislatures with term limits Comparison of state legislative salaries When legislators assume office? State constitutions State legislative sessions Candidate requirements by state Resign-to-run laws Minority and coalition control of state legislative chambers Veto overrides in state legislatures

Multi-member districts (MMDs) are electoral districts that send two or more members to a legislative chamber. Ten U.S. states have at least one legislative chamber with MMDs.

There are two other electoral systems employed in the United States, single-member and at-large. At-large districts are only used currently for the U.S. House of Representatives in states that are only allotted one representative. The vast majority use single-member districts at both the federal and state levels.

Arizona, New Jersey, South Dakota, and Washington use MMDs to elect all state House members; 10 other states allow the use of MMDs by law even when not used; and five states are legally neutral on the matter.

Of the 7,383 seats in the 50 state legislatures, 1,082 are elected from districts with more than one member, a total of 14.7 percent.

Forms

According to the Vermont Legislative Research Service, there are five forms of MMD:

1. Bloc: Voters receive as many votes as there are open seats, and can vote once for a particular candidate. All votes must be used.

2. Bloc with partial abstention: Same as bloc, except voters can elect not to use all of their votes.

3. Cumulative: Voters are free to use their votes however they wish, such as splitting their votes between multiple candidates or using all of them on a single candidate. This is not used in state legislative elections at present; in 1982, Illinois became the final state to abandon the system.

4. Staggered: Two legislators represent the same district with elections happening in different years.

5. Seat/post: Instead of running in a pool of candidates with the aim of finishing strongly enough, candidates run for a specific seat as in a single-member district.

Scholars argue that as a matter of structure, staggered and post forms should not be considered MMDs due to races having the appearance of those for single-member districts.

Forms can be mixed; bloc voting can occur in a post election, and districts can vary in a state.

Floterial districts are otherwise separate districts that geographically overlap each other, giving the effect of a multi-member district in the area of overlap. These are allowed in New Hampshire.

States currently employing MMDs

States employing multimember districts
State	State Senate	House of Representatives	Range of members after the 2014 elections
Arizona	-	Bloc with partial abstention	2
Idaho	-	Post	2
Maryland	-	Bloc/Post	3
New Hampshire	-	Bloc	1-11
New Jersey	-	Bloc	2
North Dakota	-	Bloc	2
South Dakota	-	Bloc/Post	2 (Districts 26 and 28: 2 posts)
Vermont	Bloc	Bloc	House: 1-2 Senate: 1-6
Washington	-	Post	2 (2 posts per district)
West Virginia	Staggered	Bloc	Senate: 2 House: 1-5

Establishment

Nearly all MMD states have constitutional prescriptions for their use, with Washington being the lone exception:

Arizona

See: Article 4, Part 2, Section 1(1) of the Arizona Constitution

The senate shall be composed of one member elected from each of the thirty legislative districts established pursuant to this section. The house of representatives shall be composed of two members elected from each of the thirty legislative districts established pursuant to this section.

Idaho

See: Art. III, Sec. 5 of the Idaho Constitution

A senatorial or representative district, when more than one county shall constitute the same, shall be composed of contiguous counties, and a county may be divided in creating districts only to the extent it is reasonably determined by statute that counties must be divided to create senatorial and representative districts which comply with the constitution of the United States. A county may be divided into more than one legislative district when districts are wholly contained within a single county. No floterial district shall be created. Multi-member districts may be created in any district composed of more than one county only to the extent that two representatives may be elected from a district from which one senator is elected. The provisions of this section shall apply to any apportionment adopted following the 1990 decennial census.

Maryland

See: Art. III, Sec. 2 of the Maryland Constitution

The State shall be divided by law into legislative districts for the election of members of the Senate and the House of Delegates. Each legislative district shall contain one (1) Senator and three (3) Delegates. Nothing herein shall prohibit the subdivision of any one or more of the legislative districts for the purpose of electing members of the House of Delegates into three (3) single-member delegate districts or one (1) single-member delegate district and one (1) multi-member delegate district.

New Hampshire

See: House of Representatives, Art. 9 and Art. 11 of the New Hampshire Constitution

As soon as possible after the convening of the next regular session of the legislature, and at the session in 1971, and every ten years thereafter, the legislature shall make an apportionment of representatives according to the last general census of the inhabitants of the state taken by authority of the United States or of this state. In making such apportionment, no town, ward or place shall be divided nor the boundaries thereof altered.

---

When the population of any town or ward, according to the last federal census, is within a reasonable deviation from the ideal population for one or more representative seats, the town or ward shall have its own district of one or more representative seats. The apportionment shall not deny any other town or ward membership in on non-floterial representative district. When any town, ward, or unincorporated place has fewer than the number of inhabitants necessary to entitle it to one representative, the legislature shall form those towns, wards, or unincorporated places into representative districts which contain a sufficient number of inhabitants to entitle each district so formed to one or more representatives for the entire district. In forming the districts, the boundaries of towns, wards, and unincorporated places shall be preserved and contiguous. The excess number of inhabitants of district may be added to the excess number of inhabitants of other districts to form at-large or floterial districts conforming to acceptable deviations. The legislature shall form the representative districts at the regular session following every decennial federal census.

New Jersey

See: Art. IV, Sec. II(4) of the New Jersey Constitution

4. Two members of the General Assembly shall be elected by the legally qualified voters of each Assembly district for terms beginning at noon of the second Tuesday in January next following their election and ending at noon of the second Tuesday in January two years thereafter.

North Dakota

See: Art. IV, Sec. 2 of the North Dakota Constitution

A senator and at least two representatives must be apportioned to each senatorial district and be elected at large or from subdistricts from those districts. The legislative assembly may combine two senatorial districts only when a single member senatorial district includes a federal facility or federal installation, containing over two-thirds of the population of a single member senatorial district, and may provide for the election of senators at large and representatives at large or from subdistricts from those districts.

South Dakota

See: Art. III, Sec. 5 of the South Dakota Constitution

The Legislature shall apportion its membership by dividing the state into as many single-member, legislative districts as there are state senators. House districts shall be established wholly within senatorial districts and shall be either single-member or dual-member districts as the Legislature shall determine.

Vermont

See: Section 13 and Section 18 of the Legislative Department section of the Vermont Constitution

The House of Representatives shall be composed of one hundred fifty Representatives. The voters of each representative district established by law shall elect one or two Representatives from that district, the number from each district to be established by the General Assembly.

---

The Senate shall be composed of thirty Senators to be of the senatorial district from which they are elected. The voters of each senatorial district established by law shall elect one or more Senators from that district, the number from each district to be established by the General Assembly.

Washington

Washington's House MMDs are prescribed by statute:

"The house of representatives shall consist of ninety-eight members, two of whom shall be elected from and run at large within each legislative district."

West Virginia

See: Art. VI, Sec. 4 and Art. VI, Sec. 7 of the West Virginia Constitution

For the election of senators, the state shall be divided into twelve senatorial districts, which number shall not be diminished, but may be increased as hereinafter provided. Every district shall elect two senators, but, where the district is composed of more than one county, both shall not be chosen from the same county.

---

After every census the delegates shall be apportioned as follows: The ratio of representation for the House of Delegates shall be ascertained by dividing the whole population of the state by the number of which the House is to consist and rejecting the fraction of a unit, if any, resulting from such division. Dividing the population of every delegate district, and of every county not included in a delegate district, by the ratio thus ascertained, there shall be assigned to each a number of delegates equal to the quotient obtained by this division, excluding the fractional remainder. The additional delegates necessary to make up the number of which the House is to consist, shall then be assigned to those delegate districts, and counties not included in a delegate district, which would otherwise have the largest fractions unrepresented; but every delegate district and county not included in a delegate district, shall be entitled to at least one delegate.

History

Congressional background

The Constitution does not specify the method of apportionment for federal representatives. This led most of the original thirteen states to employ multi-member districts in the first congressional elections. By 1842, six states were electing U.S. Representatives at-large, though three only had one representative. Congress established single-member districts that year in a landmark apportionment act; MMDs have not been seen in the U.S. House since. Each state continues to elect two U.S. Senators at-large on staggered schedules.

Decline in the state legislatures

See: Legal issues

Even as the legislative branch of the federal government eschewed MMDs, they continued to be a popular form of electing state legislators up until the mid-20th century.

As the civil rights movement took hold in the 1960s, it became apparent that MMDs put racial and partisan minorities at a significant disadvantage at the voting booth, as the majority could simply outvote them even when they could prevail in their own single-member district. By states' own volition as well as court decisions, MMDs' usage began to decline from nearly half of legislative seats at the turn of the 1960s to 26 percent of representatives and 7.5 percent of senators in 1984.

In the 1980s, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, South Carolina and Virginia completely eliminated the use of MMDs. In the 1990s, Alaska, Georgia, and Indiana followed suit; Arkansas, North Carolina and Wyoming continued to use MMDs through the decade. By 1998, the number of states with MMDs had fallen to 13.

Recent events

Nevada eliminates Senate MMDs

See also: Redistricting in Nevada after the 2010 census

In the 2012 redistricting process, Nevada eliminated its two multi-member senate districts, bringing the number of states using MMDs down to 10.

Hawaii considers return

See also: Redistricting in Hawaii after the 2010 census

Former Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D)

Hawaii changed to single-member districts in 1982 after a district court found the state's reapportionment plan unconstitutional in Travis v. King. Then-Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D), who some have suggested benefited from MMDs early in his political career, suggested that voters decide on a constitutional amendment reinstating multi-member districts. Though the Attorney General cleared MMDs, the state's reapportionment commission voted to reject reviving MMDs in June 2011, putting the issue to rest for at least another decade.

West Virginia considers change

See also: Redistricting in West Virginia after the 2010 census

In 2011, West Virginia had 22 MMDs ranging from two to seven members. This led to a debate over whether to abandon the system for single-member districts; in the state House, the move to establish SMDs failed twice, when Democrats voted down the select redistricting committee's minority report as well as a GOP floor amendment. While MMDs were kept after redistricting, the highest number of delegates in a given district was reduced to five.

Vermont board suggests eliminating House MMDs

See also: Redistricting in Vermont after the 2010 census

In 2011, the advisory Legislative Apportionment Board gave approval to a preliminary redistricting plan that would have ended the use of MMDs for the Vermont House of Representatives and split the six-member Vermont State Senate Chittenden District into three two-member districts. However, feedback from local governments led the board to drop these proposals.

New Hampshire amends constitution

See also: Article 11, House of Representatives, New Hampshire Constitution

In 2006, New Hampshire voters approved a constitutional amendment that gave each town with a sufficient population its own representative. This provided for floterial districts, which -- in a state already using MMDs -- allowed for even more representation.

Effects

Incumbents

A 2011 report by the University of Vermont concluded that although incumbents in MMDs are more likely to face challengers than their single-member counterparts, their chances of winning re-election are greater and the likelihood of a close outcome is lesser.

Female and minority representatives

Female legislators have repeatedly been shown to be more numerous in MMDs. In January 2014, six of the ten state legislatures with the greatest percentages of female representation used MMDs in some capacity; women held 31 percent of the seats in multi-member district chambers and 22.8 percent of the seats in single member district chambers. Representation 2020, a project run by the electoral reform advocacy group FairVote, has called for the expansion of MMDs following the 2020 census with the aim of increasing female representation in state legislatures. New Hampshire has been cited as an example where voters have crossed party lines at the polls due to a lack of female Republican candidates. The loss of MMDs in North Carolina after the 2000 census has been blamed for a slower rate of growth in the election of female legislators.

The relation of MMDs to minority legislators is less clear. MMDs have been seen as deleterious to minorities' ability to elect legislators from amongst themselves; indeed, states abandoned them largely on this ground. However, other scholars have disagreed, seeing no effect.

Arguments

Pros

• Redrawing of boundaries is not necessary, as the number of members can simply be adjusted.
• There is the possibility of increasing ideological diversity and encouraging third-party candidates.
• Arguably, incumbents have more time to spend serving constituents.

Cons

• Arguably, it is more difficult to build cohesion and to hold individual members accountable.
• Plunking, the act of voting for only one candidate, can work to the benefit of a party or interest group.
• There is no direct connection between member and voter as with the single-member system.
• MMDs may violate the principle of "one man, one vote."
• MMDs occasionally conflict with Voting Rights Act regulations.
• Campaigns in MMDs are more expensive.

Legal issues

The Supreme Court Building

The U.S. Supreme Court has discouraged the use of multi-member districts over time, but has not entirely ruled them unconstitutional. While they are legally acceptable in drawing state legislative boundaries (though not preferable in court-ordered reapportionment per Connor v. Johnson), federal law dating back to 1842 dictates that they cannot be used in drawing boundaries for the U.S. House of Representatives. By the time the last law requiring single-member districts was passed in 1967, Hawaii and New Mexico were the only states left to be affected.

Equal Protection Clause

Fortson v. Dorsey

In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause does not necessarily require all legislative districts to be single-member.

Burns v. Richardson

The following year, the Court ruled that there was no requirement that one state chamber be single-member.

White v. Regester

In 1973, a case from Texas went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that MMDs could not be used to disenfranchise racial groups.

City of Mobile v. Bolden

In 1980, the court ruled that to violate the Equal Protection Clause, the discriminatory entity must have had a purpose for doing so, and a matching result must have manifested from it.

Voting Rights Act amendments of 1982

Prior to 1982, legal challenges to multi-member districts were based on either the Fourteenth Amendment (known as the Equal Protection Clause) or the Fifteenth Amendment (the equal right of citizens to vote). Congress moved to amend the Voting Rights Act that year, practically overturning the decision in Bolden. This meant that courts could overturn MMDs based on the effect on minority voters without requiring proof of discriminatory intent.

Thornburg v. Gingles

In 1986, the high court overturned North Carolina's multi-member district maps on grounds of discrimination against black voters. Tim Storey of the National Conference of State Legislatures credits the case with a steeper decline in the use of MMDs, even though the decision did not limit MMDs in other states. North Carolina ultimately discontinued the use of MMDs after the 2000 census.

External links

• Chapter on MMDs from NCSL report on redistricting
• Vermont Legislative Research Service report on MMDs
• FairVote article on single-member districts' rise
• Research paper on MMD effects on women/minorities