This may be more of a GQ but I’ll put it here and see if the mods decide to move it.
First of all
[QUOTE=Article I, Section 4, Clause 1]
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
[/QUOTE]
But in the United States Code [2USC(2c)], the House is elected by district and the candidate must be a resident of the district they are elected from.
How can the USC overrule the constitution or in other words how is requiring states to use congressional districts either time, place or manner of holding an election?
Isn’t requiring a House member to be a resident of the district adding to the requirements which was ruled unconstitutional in Thornton?
Which I guess leads to a third question: a state decides to have at-large elections for their Representatives. The House blocks it by whatever method including not seating the newly elected representative OR a person running for office sues the State as they are being harmed by the election not being limited to their district. Could the State win in court (eventually SCOTUS) saying the Congress has overstepped their bounds?
Fourth question: would a candidate have standing to sue arguing that the state was “forced” to have districts due to an unconstitutional law?
One thing I’ve never understood about that clause is that the second part seems to make the first part meaningless. “States shall make the laws, unless Congress feels like changing them, except for this one case.” Shouldn’t it just be written, “Congress can overrule any state election law, as long as it doesn’t affect the places of choosing Senators?”
It doesn’t say, for example, “Representatives shall be elected only from amongst the residents of the districts so established…”
That clause is intended to abolish at-large elections, not require candidates to be residents. It is saying that only the residents of the district may vote for the representative of the district.
California passed a law saying that Congressional candidates had to be residents of the state as of the deadline for voter registration prior to the election. Schaefer was a Nevada resident who wanted to run for Sonny Bono’s seat in Congress (following Rep Bono’s tragic death) but had not become a resident of California before the deadline. He was excluded from the ballot. The 9th Circuit held that he had standing to sue and even though the election had passed and the results could not be overturned, the case was not moot.
It should be noted that if Congress had in fact passed a law saying that Representatives had to be residents of the district from which they were running, this case would have been moot since California law would have agreed with federal law.
I stand corrected on the issue of a Representative living in their district but the question still remains: can Congress constitutionally require states to use the district/FPP system?
One more point on a representative living in the district. There is an obvious reason to prohibit this; legislatures could - and undoubtedly would - use this against politicians of the other party when redistricting, forcing them either to move or abandon their seats. I’m very much not an originalist, but that’s entirely contrary to intent and history.
As for the constitutionality of the district/FPP system, the Constitution appears to allow Congress free range. How do you propose ignoring that?
The Constitution only allows Congress to legislate time, place and manner. I would simply convince 5 members of SCOTUS that legislating election by districts does not fall into any of those.
Listen, strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
The provision about the place for voting is because the Senate was originally elected by state legislatures, and that provision was to prevent Congress from dictating where the state capitals would be located.