Talk:Reapportionment Act of 1929

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) thing(s).

Demographics (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Demographics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DemographicsWikipedia:WikiProject DemographicsTemplate:WikiProject DemographicsDemographics articles

Untitled edit

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Wiki link that lead me to the Reapportionment Act of 1929 in the entry for the House of Representatives stated that this Act fixed the number of members of the House to 435, yet I did not see any mention of that in the entry of the Act. Doesn't that seem like an important part of the Act? Did it not do that?

believe it has to do with the wording of the law ("Act"), which says, in part:  
the number of Representatives to which each State would be entitled under an apportionment of the then existing number of Representatives

the then existing number of Representatives being 435. The necessity that the districts be of generally equal population was not set up by acts prior to the Reapportionment Act of 1929. That requirement was set up by the Supreme Court case Wesberry b. Sanders (or Reynolds v. Sims, a state case) later in the 60's.

"Reapportionment Act of 1929" (or just "Reapportionment Act" or any other flavor of this) is not an official short title--it's never been enacted as such, and Congress's subsequent amendments didn't cross-reference it by this title but just "the act of June 18, 1929 blah-blah-blah." I hate it when people make up these titles for legislation and get them accepted as though they were official (like the Freedom of Information "Act," which is really just one section of the positive-law Title 5, and the Administrative Procedure Act, which was technically repealed when Title 5 was recodified).2601:204:D502:1837:61D7:5855:2E10:6DF (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

See https://www.census.gov/history/www/reference/apportionment/apportionment_legislation_1890_-_present.html to recognize that equally populous, contiguous, compact, single member districts were called for in the reapportionment acts following the 1890, 1900, and 1910 censuses. Equal population was addressed by the Supreme Court regarding legislative districts in the 1960's. Congressional and legislative districts are still not mandated to be compact sense the 1929 Reapportionment.The Trucker (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikcob (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic