From Article 1, Sec. 2: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative". That was changed in 1911 & went into effect in 193 by a law, not a Constitutional Amendment. "The number of representatives with full voting rights is 435, a number set by Public Law 62-5 on August 8, 1911, and in effect since 1913. The number of representatives per state is proportionate to population."
I thought that if something like this was specifically stated in the Constitution, then only an Amendment could change it. Or does this mean that this law could be challenged before the Supreme Court? With today's strict originalists on the bench, would they vote to change it back to the original?
Hi,
I don't know if this is actually a history question, but anyway: As far as i can see, the very short and easy answer is that the constitution doesn't specifically spell out the size of the House of Representatives, so the act(s) aren't contrary to it, in fact the opposite.
What it says is this: (1) Representatives shall be given to states proportionally based on population, counting every person equally; (2) The number of representatives can't exceed 1 representative per thirty thousand; (3) States should have a minimum of one representative (see art. 1 sec. 2 c. 3 and amd. XIV sec. 2)
Furthermore is says that the actual enumeration is to be made by congress (art. 1 sec. 2 c. 3 second sentence). So the constitution only sets out limits and minimum requirements, not specific rules.
The apportionment act of 1911, which i assume is the act you are referring to, is such an act laying out the actual enumeration as they are supposed to do. But this wasn't the first apportionment act, in fact, the first one was the apportionment act of 1792 that set the number of representatives to 105, and those were divided out based on the 1790 census (though, the three fifths compromise was in place at the time).
Each successive apportionment act had typically increased the number, the 1911 one being no different (increasing it to 435). It was the apportionment act of 1929 that set it a different trend by not increasing, rather capping the number at 435 as a permanent solution. But this is not in any way contrary to the constitution, because each state gets a minimum of 1 representative, the number of representatives doesn't nearly exceed 1 per 30.000 and they are given out to state proportionally based on censuses (in fact, it's less than 1 per 700.000).
Do note that i am not a US lawyer or expert in US law or constitutional law.