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 State legislative walkouts Candidate requirements by state Resign-to-run laws Unique chamber leadership arrangements in state legislatures, 1994-Present Veto overrides in state legislatures Elected officials expelled from 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 used for the U.S. House of Representatives in states that are allotted one representative. The majority of states 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 have no law prohibiting or permitting MMDs.

Of the 7,386 seats in the 50 state legislatures, 910 are elected from districts with more than one member, a total of 12.3%.

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 (BPA): Same as bloc, except voters can elect not to use all of their votes.

3. Cumulative: Voters may use their votes however they wish, such as splitting their votes between multiple candidates or using all of them on a single candidate. This system was not used in state legislative elections as of 2020. The last state to use the system was Illinois, which ended the practice in 1982.

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.

New Hampshire allows for floterial districts, separate districts that geographically overlap each other. The area of overlap gives the effect of a multi-member district.

States employing MMDs

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

Establishment

All MMD states, except Washington, have constitutional provisions authorizing their use. In Washington, MMD use is prescribed by state statute.

Arizona

See also: 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 also: 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 also: 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 also: 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 also: 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 also: 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 also: 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 also: 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

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 also: 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.

History

Congressional background

The U.S. Constitution does not specify the method of apportionment for federal representatives. This led most of the original 13 states to employ MMDs 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 an apportionment act. MMDs have not been used 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 also: Legal issues

Electing state legislators in MMDs declined in the 1960s following legislation and court decisions. MMDs' usage declined 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.

Below is a brief timeline of the decline of MMDs in state legislatures:

• 1980s: Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, South Carolina, and Virginia stopped using MMDs.
• 1990s: Alaska, Georgia, and Indiana stopped using MMDs.
  • 1998: The number of states with MMDs had fallen to 13.
• 2012: In the 2012 redistricting process, Nevada eliminated its two multi-member senate districts, decreasing the number of states using MMDs to 10.
• 2018: West Virginia passed a law to change election of state House members from MMDs to 100 single-member districts following the 2020 Census.

States consider changing MMD policies

West Virginia (2018)

See also: Redistricting in West Virginia after the 2010 census

In 2018, the West Virginia governor signed a law stating that following the 2020 Census, state House members would be elected from 100 single-member districts.

West Virginia had previously considered changing from MMDs to single-member districts in 2011. At that time, the state had 22 MMDs ranging from two to seven members. In the state House, the move to establish single-member districts 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.

Hawaii (2011)

See also: Redistricting in Hawaii after the 2010 census

Former Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D)

Hawaii changed to single-member districts in 1982 after the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii found the state's reapportionment plan unconstitutional in Travis v. King. In 2011, then-Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) suggested that voters decide on a constitutional amendment reinstating MMDs. Though the attorney general cleared MMDs, the state's reapportionment commission voted to reject reviving the practice in June 2011.

Vermont (2011)

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.

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

FairVote, a group that describes itself as "a nonpartisan champion of electoral reforms," found that as of January 2014, six of the 10 state legislatures with the greatest percentages of female representation used MMDs in some capacity. Women held 31.0 percent of the seats in MMD chambers and 22.8 percent of the seats in single-member district chambers.

Professor Anthony Gierzynski at the University of Vermont argued female candidates were not more successful in MMDs. Gierzynski cited a 2003 study by University of Missouri Professor Lilliard E. Richardson, Jr. and graduate student Christopher A. Cooper. The study found "that the data do not support the claim that MMDs help female legislative candidates."

The relation of MMDs to minority legislators is less clear. Thomas F. Schaller wrote for Sabato's Cyrstal Ball that states discontinued using MMDs because they "tended to marginalize the states’ minority parties and reduce the ability of racial minorities to win House seats."

Other scholars, like Professor Gierzynski, argued there were "conflicting research findings on the effect of MMDs with regard to the representation of minorities."

Arguments

Pros

Supporters of MMDs present the following arguments:

• 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 minor party candidates.
• Incumbents have more time to spend serving constituents.

Cons

Opponents of MMDs argue the following:

• 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

As of 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court had discouraged the use of MMDs over time, but had not ruled them unconstitutional. MMDs are legally authorized in drawing state legislative boundaries, although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Connor v. Johnson (1971) that "single-member districts are generally preferable to large multi-member districts in court-fashioned apportionment plans."

Equal Protection Clause

Below is a brief timeline of U.S. Supreme Court rulings related to MMDs and the Equal Protection Clause.

• 1980: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in City of Mobile v. Bolden 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.
• 1973: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in White v. Regester that MMDs could not be used to disenfranchise racial groups.
• 1966: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Burns v. Richardson that there was no requirement that one state chamber be single member.
• 1965: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Fortson v. Dorsey that the Equal Protection Clause does not necessarily require all legislative districts to be single member.

Voting Rights Act amendments of 1982

Prior to 1982, legal challenges to MMDs were based on either the 14th Amendment (known as the Equal Protection Clause) or the 15th Amendment (the equal right of citizens to vote). In 1982, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act to allow courts to overturn MMDs based on the effect on minority voters without requiring proof of discriminatory intent.

Thornburg v. Gingles

In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Courtt overturned North Carolina's MMD maps on grounds of discrimination against black voters.

Tim Storey of the National Conference of State Legislatures credited the case with a steeper decline in the use of MMDs, even though the decision did not limit MMDs in other states. North Carolina discontinued the use of MMDs after the 2000 census.

External links

Suggest a link

• Search Google News for this topic
• Vermont Legislative Research Service report on MMDs
• FairVote article on single-member districts' rise