Umm, that .PDF shows how the U.S. House of Representatives Districts are divided, and how the State Senate districts are divided, and how the State House districts are divided, but doesn’t say anything about a division of U.S. Senate districts nor does it even show the existence of such districts.
Also none of the of the two Hawaiian U.S. Senators identify themselves as being from any given U.S. Senate district on their websites, but rather as simply Senators from Hawaii.
I should clarify that the section of that .pdf that says “State Senatorial Districts” deals with the upper house in the State Government of Hawaii, and not “U.S. Senators from Hawaii.”
When the Senate in Washington is being referred to it in a situation where clarity might be needed and in any more formal setting it is referred to as the United States Senate.
What?
You think Hawaii has only two state senators? Look again.
Both U.S. senators in Hawaii are elected by his or her district which is basically one half of the total number of representative districts each.
1st Senatorial District
(consists of all of Representative District 2,
Representative District/Precinct 1:3-14; 3:3,5-6; 7:5-7)
2nd Senatorial District
(consists of all of Representative District 4,
Representative District/Precincts 3:1-2,4,7-9; 5:1-6)
I don’t know how to paste it like you just did, but if you go back the original .pdf file and SCROLL DOWN, you see it lists districts 3-22 on the next two pages.
My bad!!
me am :wally
:eek:
Here are some more reasons why there are not U.S. Senate districts.
-
First of all, you would have to divide each state up evenly. 50-50. Doing so, would likely set up a situation where one party has an edge in that section of the state. Take Illinois for example. You would have a district with Chicago and one without Chicago. The Democrats will dominate the Chicago (and environs) and the Republicans the other one. This wouldn’t reflect the population of the state overall. The Senators would just be glorified Representatives.
-
Senators have constituent services they have to perform. Do you want to be the Senator who tells somebody who needs Federal government assistance “Sorry, it’s the other guy’s job.”
-
I think the whole existence of Senate would violate the Equal Protection clause because it would deny half of the citizens in one state the right to vote on its Senator who represents the whole state.
I read once that the main reason we have North and South Dakota was that the party in power at the time wanted to get 2 more senators for their side. I think it was the Republicans. The original plan was to have 1 state called Dakota.
In the Constitution–the original document, that is–is this passage (Article V):
“Provided…that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
That suggests that if one state–say, Texas, which is supposedly able to split itself into five states and thus be entitled to ten Senators–the other forty-nine States would object: They’d want to divide that way too! :eek:
Is this a whoosh?
Texas would not be entitled to ten senators. The Rump State of Texas would continue to be entitled to two senators.
The NEW states, not part of “Texas” any more, of (let’s say) Big Paso Bend, Panhandrillo, Padre Antonio, and Bushland, would each have two senators, equal to the other fifty.
BTW, the territory that made up what the US claimed to recognize as the Republic of Texas (much of which the RoT didn’t really control), included what is now half of New Mexico, the OK Panhandle, and pieces of Colorado and Kansas. So you could argue there was already a partial splitting of the RoT into other states
Rump state? 
JRDelirious didn’t make up the term. It also exists in such contexts as this page’s reference to Yugoslavia’s division into five nations – “Croatia, Slovenia, FYR (Former Yugoslav Republic (of)] Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina[,] and a rump state which continued to be known as Yugoslavia”. The rump state, which included the former Yugoslav capital of Belgrade, is now known as Serbia and Montenegro, the names of the two former Yugoslav republics it comprises.
Similarly, the British national legislature of 1648-53 was referred to as the Rump Parliament. One definition of “rump” (as given in my dictionary) is the last, unimportant or inferior part; mere remnant.
What are they trying to head off here? Might Tasmania rename itself, or is there something more profound that I’m missing?