The incidence, impact and intent around election manipulation grows.

Members of both political parties could not resist the temptation to shape electoral districts in a way
​that cemented their position in power (and, in some cases, even triggered changes in party control of the House).  Politicians grew concerned that the nation was headed down a dangerous path.

Alabama’s switch from single-member to at-large districts in 1840 illustrated how general ticket elections could sway results. The change allowed Alabama Democrats to take over what had previously been a divided congressional delegation.
(UCLA District ShapeFiles).

“The general ticket system was adopted by some of the smaller states because it gave them political power over the larger.” -- Representative Edward Everett of Massachusetts
as cited in the Congressional Globe, describing one of the motivations that led
states to pursue “at-large” congressional elections.
(Biography.com).

After Republicans gerrymandered Maine’s district lines in 1884, they swept the next
five congressional elections -- winning every district, even though they
earned (on average) just 54% of the vote.
(UCLA District ShapeFiles).

“[This] is the weak point in the theory of representative government, as now organized and administered, that a large portion of the voting people are permanently disenfranchised.” - Representative (and future President) James Garfield of Ohio, in a June 23, 1870 speech on the House floor. Garfield acknowledged that he was a beneficiary of gerrymandering, and believed that self-interested politicians would never resolve the issue on their own.
(Library of Congress, 1880).

Congress attempts to curb abuses through Apportionment Acts.

For nearly a century, via the constitutionally-mandated post-census House reapportionment process,
​Congress tries to reassert its influence ​on the congressional election process -- with mixed results.

(All three virtual captures courtesy of The American Political Science Journal​).

Through the Apportionment Act of 1842
(above), Congress forbade at-large, statewide elections which could deprive citizens of fair representation. (Some states ignored the Act,
and continued to use at-large voting.)

"Prior to [1842], Congress had not exercised its supervisory power over the 'Time, Place and Manner' of [House] elections.  However, over the bitter objections of those who complained that it was an unjustifiable intrusion on state sovereignty, the Apportionment Act of 1842 required all members of the House to be elected from single member districts composed of 'contiguous territory.'”

​– Earl Maltz, Professor of Law, Rutgers University Law School, “Power In Numbers:  Reapportionment and the Constitution”

---

Through the Apportionment Act of 1901
(above), Congress attempted to prevent the gerrymandering of districts by mandating
that their territory be “compact.”

"The principal purpose of requiring that districts be compact is as a check upon gerrymandering.  Without some requirement of compactness, the boundaries of a district may twist and wind their way across the map in fantastic fashion in order to absorb scattered pockets of partisan support."

​- Professor Ernest Reock, Jr., Rutgers University, “A Note: Measuring Compactness as a Requirement of Legislative Apportionment” ​

---

The Apportionment Act of 1929 (above) is
notable because it illustrated the sensitivities
and dysfunction in Congress around
the reapportionment process.

"The seats of a number of [House] members would have been endangered if the requirements of [district] contiguity and equal population had been retained [following the 1920 census].  Against this background, prior to 1929 all efforts to pass a new apportionment statute proved unsuccessful… in direct violation of the mandate of the Constitution. The 1929 statute [when finally passed] made no mention of either contiguity or districts of equal population."  

​– Earl Maltz, Professor of Law, Rutgers University Law School, “Power In Numbers: Reapportionment and the Constitution” ​

---

"Who is to be the judge as to when a district is sufficiently compact?"
-- U.S. Representative John Franklin Rixey of Virginia, questioning his colleagues on the floor of the House on January 5, 1901, and foreshadowing the judicial battles that were to come.
(Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress, 1902)

A cloud looms over
​​these legislative solutions.

Even as Congress passed Apportionment Acts, legislators recognized that ​the rules they put into place would be subject to interpretation and challenge.

---

First Cracks Appear

High Court Hesitates