Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
Page Number: 14

Cite as:  588 U. S. ____ (2019) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

tions” for Members of Congress, while giving Congress the
power to “make or alter” any such regulations.  Whether to 
give  that  supervisory  authority  to  the  National  Govern-
ment  was  debated  at  the  Constitutional  Convention. 
When  those  opposed  to  such  congressional  oversight
moved  to  strike  the  relevant  language,  Madison  came  to
its defense: 

“[T]he State Legislatures will sometimes fail or refuse 
to consult the common interest at the expense of their 
local  coveniency  or  prejudices. . . .  Whenever  the 
State  Legislatures  had  a  favorite  measure  to  carry,
they would take care so to mould their regulations as 
to  favor  the  candidates  they  wished  to  succeed.”    2 
Records  of  the  Federal  Convention  of  1787,  at  240– 
241. 

During  the  subsequent  fight  for  ratification,  the  provi-
sion remained a subject of debate.  Antifederalists predicted 
that  Congress’s  power  under  the  Elections  Clause  would 
allow  Congress  to  make  itself  “omnipotent,”  setting  the 
“time”  of  elections  as  never  or  the  “place”  in  difficult  to 
reach  corners  of  the  State.    Federalists  responded  that,
among  other  justifications,  the  revisionary  power  was 
necessary to counter state legislatures set on undermining
fair  representation,  including  through  malapportionment.
M. Klarman, The Framers’ Coup: The Making of the United
States Constitution 340–342 (2016).  The Federalists were, 
for  example,  concerned  that  newly  developing  population 
centers would be deprived of their proper electoral weight, 
as some cities had been in Great Britain.  See 6 The Doc-
umentary  History  of  the  Ratification  of  the  Constitution:
Massachusetts  1278–1279  (J.  Kaminski  &  G.  Saladino
eds. 2000).

Congress  has  regularly  exercised  its  Elections  Clause 
power,  including  to  address  partisan  gerrymandering. 
The  Apportionment  Act  of  1842,  which  required  single-