Reapportionment

In the year of grace 1928, the U. S. continues to get along with a Congress and an Electoral College modeled as of the year 1910. Every ten years the census is taken and every ten years the people's Representatives in the House are supposed to be allocated afresh, to reflect growth and shift of populations in the 435 Congressional districts. But Reapportionment with the 1920 census as a basis has been consistently blocked by Congressmen whose States had either no seat to gain or a seat or two to lose if the Constitution were obeyed.

A bill to get the thing done was actually reported out by the House Census Committee last spring but was, as usual, recommitted by the House to the Committee, i. e. shelved (TIME, May 28). Now, last week, Representative Clarence J. McLeod of Michigan improved the shining hours of his summer vacation by sending letters to all Congressmen begging to have Reapportionment given the right of way when Congress sits in December.

Mr. McLeod's Michigan, needless to say, has more representation coming to it. Since 1910, Michigan's population has grown with its industries, notably motors. California will get three more seats. Other gainers will be as follows: Connecticut, i; New Jersey, i; North Carolina, i; Ohio, 2; Texas, i; Washington, i. The adjustment will involve enlarging the unit of representation rather than swelling the ranks of the already cumbersome House. Instead of one Representative to every 211,877 of population, the latter figure will be considerably increased. This, of course, will take seats away from several States, as follows: Missouri, 2; Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Vermont, i each.

Since the Electoral College parallels the Congress, the bearing of Reapportionment on the Presidential election is intimate. A comparison of the States involved in the Reapportionment and the lists of States now likely for Hoover and for Smith, shows Smith benefited and Hoover deprived in a total of ten votes, or only two less electors than decided Wilson's victory over Hughes in 1916.