Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 54

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

15 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

tives  in  1866  confronted  a  dispute  about  who  should  be
seated  as  the  Congressman  from  the  Fifth  District  of 
Michigan.  At  a  popular  convention,  Michigan  voters  had
amended the State Constitution to require votes to be cast
within a resident’s township or ward.  The Michigan Leg-
islature, however, passed a law permitting soldiers to vote
in  alternative  locations.  If  only  the  local  votes  counted, 
one  candidate  (Baldwin)  would  win;  if  the  outside  votes
were included, the other candidate (Trowbridge) would be 
entitled to the seat.  See Baldwin v. Trowbridge, 2 Bartlett 
Contested  Election  Cases,  H. R.  Misc.  Doc.  No.  152,  41st 
Cong., 2d Sess., 46–47 (1866). 

The  House  Elections  Committee  explained  that  the
Elections  Clause  conferred  power  on  “the  Legislature”  of
Michigan  to  prescribe  election  regulations. 
“But,”  the 
Committee  asked,  “what  is  meant  by  ‘the  legislature?’ 
Does  it  mean  the  legislative  power  of  the  State,  which
would  include  a  convention  authorized  to  prescribe  fun-
damental  law;  or  does  it  mean  the  legislature  eo  nomine, 
as  known  in  the  political  history  of  the  country?”    Id.,  at 
47.  The  Committee  decided,  and  the  full  House  agreed,
that  “the  Legislature”  in  the  Elections  Clause  was  the 
“legislature  eo  nomine”—the  legislature  by  that  name,  a 
representative body.  Ibid.  That conclusion followed both 
from  the  known  meaning  of  “the  Legislature”  at  the  time
of the framing and the many other uses of the word in the 
Constitution that would not be compatible with a popular
convention.  Thus, “[w]here there is a conflict of authority 
between  the  constitution  and  legislature  of  a  State  in
regard to fixing place of elections, the power of the legisla-
ture is paramount.”  Id., at 46; see California Democratic 
Party  v.  Jones,  530  U. S.  567,  603,  and  n.  11  (2000)  (Ste-
vens, J., dissenting) (relying on Baldwin for its conclusion 
that “the Elections Clause’s specific reference to ‘the Legis-
lature’ is not so broad as to encompass the general ‘legisla-
tive power of this State’ ”).