Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 

Shively);  cf.  Shiel  v.  Thayer,  Bartlett  Contested  Election 
Cases,  H. R.  Misc.  Doc.  No.  57,  38th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  351 
(1861)  (view  of  House  Committee  of  Elections  Member 
Dawes  that  Art. I,  §4’s  reference  to  “the  Legislature”
meant simply the “constituted authorities, through whom
[the  State]  choose[s]  to  speak,”  prime  among  them,  the 
State’s  Constitution,  “which  rises  above  . . .  all  legislative
action”).  Others  anticipated  that  retaining  the  reference
to  “the  legislature”  would  “condem[n]  . . .  any  [redistrict­
ing] legislation by referendum or by initiative.”  47 Cong. 
Rec.  3436  (statement  of  Sen.  Burton).  In  any  event,  pro­
ponents  of  the  change  maintained,  “[i]n  view  of  the  very 
serious evils arising from gerrymanders,” Congress should 
Id.,  at  3508 
not  “take  any  chances  in  [the]  matter.” 
(same).  “[D]ue  respect  to  the  rights,  to  the  established 
methods,  and  to  the  laws  of  the  respective  States,”  they
urged,  required  Congress  “to  allow  them  to  establish
congressional  districts  in  whatever  way  they  may  have
provided by their constitution and by their statutes.”  Id., 
at 3436; see id., at 3508 (statement of Sen. Works).

As  this  Court  observed  in  Hildebrant,  “the  legislative 
history of th[e] [1911 Act] leaves no room for doubt [about 
why] the prior words were stricken out and the new words
inserted.”  241  U. S.,  at  568.    The  change  was  made  to
safeguard  to  “each  State  full  authority  to  employ  in  the
creation of congressional districts its own laws and regula­
tions.”  47  Cong.  Rec.  3437  (statement  of  Sen.  Burton).
The 1911 Act, in short, left the question of redistricting “to 
the laws and methods of the States.  If they include initia­
tive, it is included.”  Id., at 3508. 

While  the  1911  Act  applied  only  to  reapportionment 
following the 1910 census, see Wood v. Broom, 287 U. S. 1, 
6–7  (1932),  Congress  used  virtually  identical  language 
when it enacted §2a(c) in 1941.  See Act of Nov. 15, 1941, 
ch.  470,  55  Stat.  761–762.    Section  2a(c)  sets  forth  con­
gressional-redistricting  procedures  operative  only  if  the