/373 
 
'm 
 
 Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 ^: 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030474948 
 
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTING IN IOWA 
 

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTING IN IOWA 
 
 It is the purpose of this paper to outline briefly the history 
 of legislation on the subject of congressional districting in 
 Iowa — pointing out the changes made from time to time, 
 showing by means of maps the exact form and extent of the 
 districts established by the several acts of the General As- 
 sembly, and commenting upon the motives and circumstances 
 prompting alterations in the boundaries of these districts. 
 
 Prior to 1847 thei-e were no congressional districts in the 
 State. Ft-om 1838 to 1846 Iowa existed as a separate Ter- 
 ritory, entitled to one Delegate in Congress, who was chosen 
 for a term of two years and who represented the entire ter- 
 ritorial area and population.^ Then came the change inci- 
 dent to statehood. On August 4, 1846, Congress passed 
 an act defining the boundaries of the State of Iowa and pro- 
 viding that, until the next census and apportiontnent, the 
 new State should be entitled to two seats in the House of 
 Representatives.^ A State Constitution was adopted, and 
 on December 28, 1846, Iowa entered the Union. The State 
 had not, however, been districted in time for the election of 
 that year; hence the two congressmen were chosen on a 
 general ticket, each to represent the State as a wliole.^ Since 
 that time Iowa congressmen have been elected by districts 
 
 '■Laws of iowd, 1838, p. 38. 
 
 ' U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. ix, p. 52. 
 
 • The Iowa Standard, Nov. 4, Nov. 11, and Dec. 2, 1846. 
 
and the Genera! Assembly has enacted seven laws respecting 
 the division of the State for this purpose. 
 
 THE ACT OP 1847 
 
 On December 7, 1846, the State Senate voted that a 
 "select committee of seven" be appointed to "report a bill 
 to the Senate, dividing the State into two congressional dis- 
 tricts, so as to include, as nearly as can be done, an equal 
 portion of the territory and an equal portion of the popula- 
 tion of the State in each district, and that the vote given in 
 August last for and against the constitution be taken as the 
 basis in dividing the population. " ^ This committee reported 
 a bUl which was later referred to a selected committee of 
 three from each judicial district.^ From this body the bill 
 emerged in a somewhat modified form;* and, after consider- 
 able discussion and amendment both in the Senate* and in 
 the House,^ it became a law, February 22, 1847.^ This 
 first statute on the subject divided the State into two con- 
 gressional districts : the first was to consist of the counties 
 of Lee, Van Buren, JejGEerson, Wapello, Davis, Appanoose, 
 Henry, Mahaska, Monroe, Marion, Jasper, Polk, Keokuk, 
 and the country south of a line drawn from the northwest 
 corner of Polk county west to the Missouri river; the second 
 was composed of the counties of Clayton, Dubuque, Dela- 
 ware, Jackson, Clinton, Jones, Linn, Poweshiek, Benton, 
 Iowa, Johnson, Cedar, Scott, Muscatine, Washington, Louisa, 
 
 ^ Senate Journal, let G. A., p. 31. * Tbid, pp. 50, 69. 
 
 ""lUd, p. 109. "-lUd, pp. 11M18. 
 
 ^ Souse Journal, Ist G. A., pp. 339, 355. 
 "Laws of Iowa, Ist Sess., Ist G. A., p. 84. 
 
Des Moines, and all north of a line from the northwest 
 corner of Polk county west to the Missouri. 
 
 From the standpoint of area, of population, and of poli- 
 tics, this arrangement seems to have been equitable. Turn- 
 ing to Map I, on which the limits of the two districts are 
 indicated, we see that the dividing line marks off a southern, 
 or first district, and a northern, or second district, which 
 are fairly regular in outline, but quite unequal in area. This 
 inequality is, however, readily explained in this way. To 
 compensate for the sparse settlement of the northwest, the 
 eastern portion of the boundary line veers to the south so 
 that the comparatively dense population of the southeast 
 may be shared by the second district. In population, on 
 the other hand, the first (and smaller) district leads by more 
 than 2,000;^ while in voters it outnumbers the second dis^ 
 trict by about 500.^ As to politics, each district returned a 
 Democratic majority of a few hundred.^ But there is little 
 ground for a charge of gerrymander; for, while the Whig 
 minority was large in each case, it was so distributed as to 
 make the formation of even one Whig district* impossible, 
 except through the establishment of the most irregular and 
 unnatural boundaries. 
 
 'Hull's Historical and Oomparative Census of Iowa, p. 196. 
 
 ' The Iowa Standard, Sept. 15, 1847. 
 
 *Ihid. 
 
 *Whig majorities in 1847 were: — Henry 131, Jasper 38, Mahaska 
 25, Dallas 7, Clayton 4, Cedar 22, Delaware 20, Jones 2, Scott 13, 
 Muscatine 14, Washington 80, Louisa 103. Total 459. — The Iowa 
 Standard, Sept. 15, 1847. 
 
6 
 
 THE ACT OP 1848 
 
 Early in January, 1848, a bill was introduced into the 
 House of Representatives providing for the transfer of Powe- 
 shiek county from the second congressional district to the 
 first. ^ Apparently without opposition, this measure passed 
 both houses, and on January 24 received the signature of 
 the Governor.^ Why this transfer was made, is not clear. 
 It is true that on this same January 24 the first law was 
 passed for the organization of the county of Poweshiek,^ 
 whose boundaries had been fixed a few years before;* but 
 this change in the status of the county did not necessitate a 
 change in its relation to the congressional districting of the 
 State. The transfer was not to equalize the population of 
 the two districts; for the census returns for 1847, 1848, and 
 1849 show that the inhabitants of the first district outnum- 
 bered those of the second by several thousand.® Nor could 
 the political motive have been weighty; for, while the elec- 
 tion returns indicate a decreasing Democratic majority in 
 the first district and an increasing Democratic majority in 
 the second, the Whig majority of five in Poweshiek was 
 not sufiicient to make any material difference in the political 
 . complexion of either district.® The chief merit of the law 
 seems to have been that it tended to straighten the dividing 
 
 ^ House Journal, 1st G. A., Extra Sess., pp. 37, 64. 
 
 * Souse Journal, 1st G. A., Extra Sess., p. VO; Senate Journal, p. 
 59; Laws of Iowa, Ist G. A., Extra Sess., p. 34. 
 
 *Zaws of Iowa, 1st G. A., Extra Sess., p. 55. 
 
 * Bevised Statutes of the lerritory of Iowa, 1842-1843, p. 131. 
 
 ^ House Journal, 1st G. A., Extra Sess., p. 69; Hull's Historical 
 and, Comparative Census, pp. 196, 198. 
 « Fairall's JfcTawMa^, 1882, pp. 14, 15. 
 
line and so make the form of the districts more regular. 
 (See Map II). 
 
 THE ACT OP 1857 
 
 On January 24, 1857, Mr. Foster from the Senate com- 
 nodttee on apportionment reported a bill to alter the bound- 
 aries of the congressional districts.* The measure promptly- 
 passed both houses without amendment,^ and on January 
 28 became a law. By its terms, three counties (Des Moines, 
 Louisa, and Washington) were detached from the second 
 district and attached to the first.* The reasons for this 
 change are not far to seek. In the first place, the popula- 
 tion of the second district had been increasing much more 
 rapidly than that of the first. In 1849 the latter had num- 
 bered 86,899 inhabitants, while the former had only 68,074; 
 but in 1856 the order of precedence was reversed, since the 
 first district had but 222,120, whereas the population of the 
 second had grown to 285,755.* A slight change of bound- 
 aries was, therefore, warranted in order to restore equality. 
 Moreover, several circumstances argued in favor of the 
 transfer of the three counties mentioned in the act. It 
 tended to equalize the population of the two districts, and 
 yet guarded against the necessity of a too early readjust- 
 ment, by giving the first district a slight excess of inhab- 
 itants to offset the more rapid increase in the second.® Fur- 
 
 * Senate Journal, 6th G. A., p. 450. 
 
 'Senate Journal, 6th G. A., pp. 464, 488; Mouse Journal, 6th G. 
 A., pp. 492, 516. 
 
 'Zates of Iowa, 6th G. A., p. 323. 
 
 * Hull's historical and Comparative Census, p. 196. 
 
 'Ibid, p. 196. By the new arrangement the first district had 
 262,999 and the second 244,8'76 inhabitants. 
 
thermore, it served to secure greater regularity in the bound- 
 aries and forms of the districts than any other arrangement 
 would have done.^ But it seems also to have subserved 
 partisan ends. In the congressional election of 1856 the 
 second district returned a Kepublican majority of 6,017, 
 while the first went Kepublican by only 955 votes. ^ The 
 second was safe; but no great change of sentiment would be 
 requisite to give the first to the Democrats. The coun- 
 ties of Des Moines, Louisa, and Washington alone had, in 
 1856, given a majority of 862 for the Republican candidate. 
 This vote could be shifted to the first district; and so, with- 
 out endangering party success in the northern district, the 
 Republican chances in case of general Democratic gains 
 would be strengthened several fold. The outcome of the 
 election of 1858 vindicated the wisdom of this precautionary 
 step; for the Republican majorities were reduced to 2,739 in 
 the second district and 600 in the first, while the three coun- 
 ties in question were carried by only 499 votes. This last 
 number subtracted from the 600 would have left the domin- 
 ant party with the uncomfortably narrow margin of 101 in 
 the southern district.^ The act of 1857 had relieved the 
 Republicans of great anxiety and fortified their success for 
 the future. 
 
 THE ACT OF 1862 
 
 The census of 1860 revealed marvelous growth on the 
 part of Iowa. During the decade then closing the popula- 
 
 1 See Maps II and III. 
 'Fairall's Manual, 1882, p. 21. 
 " Tipton Advertiser, Deo. 11, 1858. 
 
tion of the State had increased more than 250 per cent.^ For 
 the same period the ratio of national representation, fixed 
 by Congress after the taking of each census, had been raised 
 only about 37 per cent.^ When the new figures for the 
 population of Iowa were divided by the new ratio the result 
 was Jive and a large fraction. Moreover, in 1862 Congress 
 decided to increase the total number of Representatives from 
 233 to 241, and, in recognition of the fraction above men- 
 tioned, to award one of these new representatives to the 
 State of Iowa.* Thus the number of seats in Congress to 
 which Iowa was entitled was suddenly increased from two to 
 six. The State was to be redistricted accordingly. This 
 work was promptly taken up by the General Assembly. It 
 was on March 25, 1862, that Mr. Eaton introduced into the 
 House a bill which was speedily passed and presented to 
 the Senate on the very day of its introduction in the House.* 
 Here it was referred to the committee on congressional dis- 
 tricts, from which it was reported with important amend- 
 ments. Over this report a spirited discussion arose; numer- 
 ous additional amendments were suggested and lost; but the 
 bill was finally passed substantially as it came from the 
 Senate committee.^ Thereupon the House refused to con- 
 cur in the senate amendments. A committee of conference 
 
 'Population of Iowa in 1850 was 192,214;. in 1860, 674,913.— 
 Hull's Historical and Comparative Census, pp. 198-9. 
 
 'Ratio of representation fixed after the census of 1850 was 93,500; 
 after the census of 1860 it was 127,941. 
 
 » U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. xii, p. 353. Act of March 4, 1862. 
 
 ^ Souse Journal, 9th G. A., p. 692; vote 53-to 22. 
 
 ''Senate Journal, 9th G. A., pp. 449, 456, 516, 517, 519, 536; 
 vote 26 to 16. 
 
10 
 
 was chosen by each house, and a compromise measure was 
 agreed upon, which became a law April 5, 1862.^ 
 
 By this act the State was divided into the following six 
 districts: The first, consisting of the counties of Lee, Van 
 Buren, Davis, Jefferson, Henry, Des Moines, Louisa, and 
 Washington; the second, of Muscatine, Scott, Clinton, Jack- 
 son, Cedar, Jones, and Linn; the third, of Dubuque, Clay- 
 ton, Allamakee, Winneshiek, Howard, Mitchell, Buchanan, 
 Floyd, Chickasaw, Bremer, Fayette, and Delaware; the 
 fourth, of Appanoose, Monroe, Wapello, Marion, Mahaska, 
 Keokuk, Jasper, Poweshiek, Iowa, Johnson, Tama, and 
 Benton; the fifth, of Polk, Dallas, Guthrie, Audubon, 
 Shelby, Harrison, Warren, Madison, Adair, Cass, Pottawat- 
 tamie, Lucas, Clarke, Union, Adams, Montgomery, Mills, 
 Wayne, Decatur, Ringgold, Taylor, Page, and Fremont; 
 the sixth, of Worth, Cerro Gordo, Black Hawk, Grundy, 
 Butler, Franklin, Hardin, Marshall, Story, Hamilton, 
 Wright, Hancock, Winnebago, Boone, Webster, Humboldt, 
 Kossuth, Greene, Calhoun, Pocahontas, Palo Alto, Emmet, 
 Carroll, Sac, Buena Vista, Clay, Dickinson, Crawford, Ida, 
 Cherokee, O'Brien, Osceola, Monona, Woodbury, Plymouth, 
 Sioux, and Buncombe.'^ 
 
 The territorial features of this enactment are clearly rep- 
 resented on Map IV. Perhaps the most striking fact in this 
 connection is the great inequality in the size of the districts. 
 
 ^ Senate Journal, 9tli G. A., pp. 550, 564, 580, 586, 595. It is 
 probable that this is the senatorial plan for the six districts which 
 is given in the Dubuque Weekly limes, April 10, 1862. 
 
 "■Laws of Iowa,, 9ih. G. A., Reg. Sess., p. 182. Buncombe was 
 tiio original name of Lyon county. The name was changed, Decem- 
 ber 10, 1862; — see Zaws of Iowa, 9th G. A., Extra Sess., p. 22. 
 
11 
 
 A vast area, more than half the State, is embraced in two 
 districts; while the sixth district alone occupies more than 
 one-third of the entire Commonwealth. This is suggestive 
 of the unequal distribution of population throughout the 
 State; but the territorial inequality of the districts is by no 
 means commensurate with the inequality in the distribution 
 of population. In fact, the population of the districts varies 
 almost inversely as their areas. The first had 138,032 in- 
 habitants in 1860; the second, 125,036; the third, 128,646; 
 the fourth, 134,895; the fifth, 101,571; and the sixth, 46,- 
 732.^ Had the people of Iowa been divided equally among 
 six districts, made up of contiguous territory, these large 
 districts would have been still larger and, perhaps, would 
 have exceeded the limits consistent with the most serviceable 
 and effective representation. Nor were political considera- 
 tions lost sight of. The dominant party not unnaturally 
 looked out for its own interests. The population of the 
 several districts was made almost exactly proportionate to 
 the strength of the Democratic opposition in those districts. 
 The success of these party efforts was apparent in the fall of 
 1862; for, while the Democrats cast more than three-sevenths 
 of the vote of the State, each one of the new districts chose 
 a Kepublican representative.^ The distribution of territory 
 
 ^ HulV 8 JTistorical and Oomparative Census, p. 19,7. 
 
 "Vote for congressmen, in 1862: — 
 
 _ 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 
 
 Partt Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. 
 
 Republican 12705 12433 12112 12900 10806 5396 
 
 Democratic 10486 8930 8452 11520 7346 2755 
 
 Kep. Majority 2219 3503 3660 1380 2960 2631 
 
 — Fairall's Manual, 1882, p. 26. 
 
12 
 
 and voters by which this result was accomplished was not, 
 however, especially remarkable or reprehensible; for, while 
 the Democratic vote was strong, it was so distributed as to 
 make the erection of more than one or two Democratic dis- 
 tricts (e. g. the first and fourth) impossible without resort 
 to palpable gerrymandering in favor of Democracy. 
 
 THE ACT OP 1872 
 
 On July 14, 1862, Congress passed a law prescribing that 
 in each State, entitled to more than one representative, the 
 number to which such State should be entitled should be 
 elected hy districts composed of contiguous temtory and 
 equal in number to the number of representatives to which 
 the State should be entitled.^ Since that time, each federal 
 statute relating to the number and apportionment of repre- 
 sentatives in Congress, has re-enacted these provisions and 
 has further specified (1) that the districts in each State shall 
 contain, as nearly as practicable, an equal number of inhab- 
 itants, and (2) that, if the number of representatives from 
 any State be increased, the State shall choose a delegate at 
 large until the State legislature shall have re- districted the 
 State.2 
 
 As Iowa legislation on the subject had hitherto been 
 roughly conformable to these conditions, their enactment 
 into national law had no appreciable effect upon the later 
 laws of the State relating to the congressional districting. 
 It may be of interest, however, to note that the first act 
 
 ' U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. xii, p. 572. 
 
 ^ Zf. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. xvii, p. 28; Vol. xxii, p. 5; Vol. 
 XXVI, p. 735. 
 
13 
 
 subsequent to this national regulation was that of 1872. 
 The congressional apportionment act of February 22, 1872, 
 increased the number of representatives assigned to Iowa 
 from six to nine.' Even in anticipation of a new apportion- 
 ment, the Iowa State Senate had appointed a congressional 
 districting committee consisting of one senator from each 
 judicial district, and had later augmented the membership 
 of this committee by three. ^ They reported a bill, which 
 was slightly altered, and, after the failure of numerous other 
 amendments, was passed by the Senate.' Upon being sub- 
 mitted to the House, the bill was referred to the committee 
 on congressional districts, was reported favorably, and 
 passed without amendment,* but by a strictly party vote, 
 all Democrats voting in the negative.^ 
 
 This act, which was signed by the Governor, April 17, 
 1872, divided the State into nine districts: \k% first consist- 
 ing of Lee, VanBuren, Jefferson, Henry, DesMoines, Louisa, 
 and Washington counties; the second of Muscatine, Scott, 
 Clinton, Jackson, Jones, and Cedar; the thi/rd^ of Dubuque, 
 Clayton, Allamakee, Winneshiek, Fayette, Buchanan, and 
 Delaware; ihe fow^th, of Black Hawk, Bremer, Chickasaw, 
 Howard, Mitchell, Floyd, Butler, Grrundy, Hardin, Franklin, 
 Cerro Gordo, Worth, Winnebago, Hancock, and Wright; the 
 fifth, of Johnson, Iowa, Poweshiek, Marshall, Tama, Benton, 
 and Linn; the sixth, of Davis, Wapello, Keokuk, Mahaska, 
 
 * U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. xvii, p. 28. 
 
 * Senate Journal, 14th G. A., pp. 13, 35, 44. 
 "Ibid, pp. 381, 403; vote, 34 to T. 
 
 * Souse Journal, 19th G. A., pp. 519, 549, 591, 688. 
 '^lowa State Register, April 17, 1872. 
 
14 
 
 Jasper, Marion, Monroe, and Appanoose; the seventh, of 
 Wayne, Decatur, Clarke, Lucas, Warren, Polk, Dallas, 
 Madison, Adair, Guthrie; the eighth, of Ringgold, Union, 
 Adams, Taylor^ Page, Montgomery, Cass, Audubon, Shelby, 
 Harrison, Pottawattamie, Mills, Fremont; the ninth, of 
 Story, Boone, Hamilton, Webster, Humboldt, Kossuth, 
 Crocker,^ Emmet, Palo Alto, Pocahontas, Calhoun, G-reene, 
 Carroll, Sac, Buena Vista, Clay, Dickinson, Osceola, O'Brien, 
 Cherokee, Ida, Crawford, Monona, Plymouth, Sioux, Lyon, 
 and Woodbury.^ 
 
 The following table shows the population and the polit- 
 ical complexion of each district: 
 
 NuMBEK OP Population' Republican* Democratic* Republican* 
 DiSTKiCT 1870 Vote Vote Majority 
 
 1872 1872 1872 
 
 Ist District 153269 15149 10961 4188 
 
 2nd District 157725 12521 12346 175 
 
 3rd District laoeiY 13654 11^74 1880 
 
 4th District 118385 15615 4574 11041 
 
 5th District 144364 15531 7434 SOOt 
 
 6th District 155585 14638 11703 2935 
 
 7th District 125211 14909 7702 7207 
 
 8th District 94121 12675 6999 5676 
 
 9th District 85743 12402 6152 6250 
 
 Total 1194020 127094 79645 47449 
 
 'May 13, 1870, a law was enacted erecting the northernmost town- 
 ships of Kossuth county into a separate county known as Crocker. — 
 See Laws of Iowa, 13th G. A., p. 239. But on December 11, 1871, 
 the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional on the ground 
 that these townships did not contain the minimum area required for a 
 county erected under the Constitution of the State.— Stiles Reports, 
 XI t, 16 (old series); xxxiii, 16 (new series). 
 
 •Laws of Iowa, 14th G. A., Reg. Sess., p. 63. 
 
 ^'E.vlVs Historical and Comparative Census, pp. 197-9. 
 
 * Census of Iowa, 1873, p. 80; vote for congressmen. 
 
15 
 
 From Map V, it will be seen tliat these districts were 
 reasonably regular and that the grouping of counties was 
 fairly convenient from a territorial point of view; while 
 variation in extent of districts was naturally much less strik- 
 ing than before. 
 
 The case in 1872 closely paralleled that of 1862. Con- 
 gress had made a new apportionment in accordance with a 
 new census. Iowa's representation had been increased. The 
 Republicans were in control of the State, and sought to 
 secure the new districts as well as the old. The Democrats 
 still cast about two-fifths of the votes of the State. The 
 formation of a few Democratic districts would have been 
 easy,^ but convenience and regularity of districting did not 
 demand it. The Republicans lived up to all their oppor- 
 tunities. As in 1862, population was made to vary directly 
 as the strength of Democratic opposition. Eastern districts 
 were made the more populous, and at the first election after 
 the new apportionment all the districts returned Republican 
 majorities. But in 1872 the second district was carried by 
 the narrow margin of only 175 votes,^ and in 1874 the third 
 went Democratic by 63 votes. ^ 
 
 Early in 1878 a majority of the Iowa house committee 
 on congressional districts reported favorably a bill for the 
 redistricting of the State.* The minority, however, protested 
 
 ^The second, for example, by transferring Cedar or Jones (each 
 with about 1400 Republican majority) to the fifth district. — Census 
 of Iowa, 1873, pp. 15-lQ. 
 
 ' Census of Iowa, 1873, p. 80. 
 
 'Fairall's Manual, 1882, p. 40. 
 
 * House Jouriml, l7thG. A., pp. 414, 444. 
 
16 
 
 on two grounds: (1) that the census of 1880 would soon 
 lead to a reorganization of the districts and would probably 
 increase the number alloted to Iowa; (2) that the proposed 
 changes were unwise and unjustifiable since they affected 
 only the third and fourth districts and destroyed the sym- 
 metry of both, making both reach from the Mississippi far 
 westward in narrow strips of twenty-four by a hundred and 
 seventy-five.^ Nothing ever came of this proposition, which 
 was evidently an attempt to divide the Democratic vote of 
 the northeastern part of the State in such a way as to make 
 the dubious third district securely Republican. 
 
 THE ACT OP 1882 
 
 In accordance with the census of 1882, Iowa's quota of 
 representatives was increased to eleven. The new appor- 
 tionment bill was enacted February 25, 1882.^ Immediately 
 the question of redistricting the State was taken up in ear- 
 nest by the General Assembly and the press. Within two 
 weeks nearly a dozen plans had been published in the State 
 Register alone, ^ and no less than four distinct bills had been 
 introduced in the Senate,* and three in the House. ^ In each 
 house these proposals were referred to the proper committee, 
 which, in each case, reported a substitute for the numerous 
 measures submitted.^ The two houses passed their respec- 
 
 ^ House Journal, IVtli G. A., p. 461. 
 ' U. S. /Statutes at Large, Vol. xxii, p. 5. 
 •February 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, March. 1. 
 *■ Senate Journal, 19th G. A., pp. 239, 260, 288, 337. 
 "^ House Journal, 19th G. A., pp. 324, 355. 
 
 ^ Senate Journal, 19th G. A., pp. 239, 260, 292, 337, 365; House 
 Journal, 19th G. A., 324, 355, 479. 
 
17 
 
 tive substitutes almost simultaneously and, on the same day, 
 March 14, each was notified of the action of the other.^ 
 In the House, the senate substitute was referred to the com- 
 mittee on congressional districts.* In the Senate, the house 
 substitute was so amended as to change radically the com- 
 position and boundaiies of the western districts.* The 
 House refused to concur in these amendments;* the Senate 
 refused to recede from its position; and a committee of con- 
 ference was decided upon.^ This committee agreed upon a 
 slightly modified form of the Senate measure,® and their 
 report was adopted by both houses,' submitted to the Gov- 
 ernor, and on March 23 became a law. 
 
 The arrangement was as follows: first district, made up 
 of the counties of Lee, Dea Moines, Henry, Van Buren, Jef- 
 ferson, Washington, and Louisa; the second^ of Jones, Jack- 
 son, Clinton, Cedar, Scott, and Muscatine; the thwd^ of 
 Dubuqiie, Delaware, Buchanan, Black Hawk, Bremer, But- 
 ler, and Grundy; the fourth, of Clayton, Fayette, Winne- 
 shiek, Allamakee, Howard, Mitchell, Floyd, and Chickasaw; 
 the fifth, of Marshall, Tama, Benton, Linn, Johnson, and 
 
 ^ Senate Jovmal, 19th G. A., pp. 403-405, 428; House Journal, 
 19th G. A., p. 520. 
 
 ^ Souse Jowmal, 19th G. A., p. 526. 
 
 = Senate Journal, 19th G. A., p. 446. 
 
 ''Souse Journal, pp. 561, 562. 
 
 ^Ibid, pp. 578, 579, 584. 
 
 'Ibid, p. 599; Senate Journal, p. 496; State Begister, March 17, 
 1882. Audubon was changed from the 7th to the 9th district; Kos- 
 suth from the 11th to the 10th; Monona from the 9th to the 11th. 
 
 ''Souse Journal, 19th G. A., pp. 599, 600, 604; Senate Journal, 
 p. 497 
 
18 
 
 Iowa; the sixth, of Jasper, Poweshiek, Mahaska, Monroe, 
 Wapello, Keokuk, and Davis; the seventh, of Guthrie, Dal- 
 las, Polk, Adair, Madison, Warren, and Marion; the eighth, 
 of Clarke, Lucas, Kinggold, Decatur, Wayne, Appanoose, 
 Union, Adams, Page, and Taylor; the ninth, of Pottawatr 
 tamie, Cass, Mills, Audubon, Crawford, Montgomery, 
 Shelby, Fremont, and Harrison; the tenth, of Boone, Story, 
 Hardin, Hamilton, Webster, Franklin, Wright, Humboldt^ 
 Hancock, Cerro Grordo, Worth, Winnebago, and Kossuth; 
 and the eleventh, of Lyon, Osceola, Dickinson, Emmet, 
 Sioux, O'Brien, Clay, Palo Alto, Plymouth, Cherokee, 
 Buena Vista, Pocahontas, Woodbury, Ida, Sac, Calhoun, 
 Monona, Carroll, and Greene.-' 
 
 According to the census of 1880, the population was now 
 somewhat mor^ evenly distributed than by any previous 
 arrangement, the first district having 156,972 inhabitants, 
 the second, 164,958, the third, 144,418, the fourth, 149,227, 
 the fifth, 152,112, the sixth, 146,831, the seventh, 147,125, 
 the eighth, 148,397, the ninth, 153,683, the tenth, 137,368, 
 and the eleventh, 121,534.^ But territorially the districts 
 of 1882 compare less favorably. On Map VI the long, slim 
 figures of the third and the eighth, and the ragged outlines 
 of the sixth especially arrest our attention. Further exam- 
 ination of the situation shows that these irregular boundaries 
 are the result of an attempt to render harmless the Demo- 
 cratic and Greenback opposition of the east and south. 
 Apparently this object had been accomplished; for on the 
 basis of the election returns of 1880 each of the eleven new 
 
 'Zaws of Iowa, IQth G. A., Reg. Sess., p. 150. 
 'Hull's Historical and Comparative Census, pp. 196-7. 
 
19 
 
 districts was Repablican by several thousand, ^ But this 
 sweeping triumph was Only apparent. In the fall of 1882, 
 the Democrats carried three Districts (the second, fourth, 
 and ninth), while the fifth gave a Republican majority of 
 only twenty-three.'* The political weakness of this grouping 
 was further demonstrated in 1884, when the second, fifth, and 
 sixth districts went Democratic, and the vote in the first, 
 fourth, and ninth was very close.' The climax, however, was 
 reached in 1885, when in the State election the Fusionists 
 carried six of the congressional districts (the first, second, 
 third, fifth, sixth, and ninth); while the Republicans carried 
 only five districts (the fourth, seventh, eighth, tenth, and 
 eleventh).* 
 
 Early in March, 1886, Republican newspapers and legis- 
 lators began the vigorous agitation of the question of reor- 
 ganizing the congressional districts of the State. No addi- 
 tions had been made to Iowa's representation in Congress-; 
 no new apportionment bill had been passed at all. But the 
 press advocated redistricting on several grounds: (1) that 
 the increase in population since the last apportionment had 
 disturbed the equality then established, and so wrought 
 manifest injustice as among the different districts; (2) that 
 Iowa was a Republican State and should have a Republican 
 delegation in Congress, but under the present arrangement 
 Democrats were likely to fill a large percentage of her seats 
 
 'Fairall's, Manual, 1882, p. 49-51. 
 ""Ibid, pp. 58-59. 
 ■■'Ibid, 1885, p. 34. 
 
 * Census of Iowa, 1885, p. 356-39V; Iowa Official Begister, 1886, 
 p. 82. 
 
20 
 
 in the national legislature;' (3) that redistricting in the 
 interests of a stronger Republican delegation from Iowa was 
 especially desirable at that time, when the Republicans had 
 a reasonable hope of gaining control of the next Congress.^ 
 The relative importance of these arguments is not difficult 
 to determine. While the shifting of population was a mat- 
 ter to be taken into consideration after a redistricting had 
 been decided upon, it alone was not of sufficient importance 
 to warrant a reorganization so soon. In fact the inequal- 
 ities were less notable than immediately after the passage of 
 earlier redistricting acts.' The paramount consideration was 
 political. This the press was free to acknowledge, and in 
 answer to Democratic criticism was cited the disfranchise- 
 ment of the negro in the South.* 
 
 THE ACT OF 1886 
 
 Separate bills for the redivision of the State were early 
 introduced into the two branches of the General Assembly.^ 
 The senate measure was reported favorably from the com- 
 
 ^lowa State Register, March 5, 1886 (From Dallas County News). 
 *Ibid, March 17, 1886; March 30, 1886. 
 • A comparative table may be serviceable. 
 
 No. OP DiSTKicT 1862 1872 1882 1886 
 
 1st District 138032 153269 156972 150214 
 
 2nd District 125036 157725 164958 165262 
 
 3rd District 128646 159617 144418 146195 
 
 4tli District 134895 119385 149227 141681 
 
 5th District 101571 126788 162112 152516 
 
 6tli District 46732 165585 146831 147209 
 
 7tli District 125211 147125 160025 
 
 8tli District .... 94117 148397 151967 
 
 9th District 76743 153683 173258 
 
 10th District 137368 164806 
 
 11th District 121534 200849 
 
 — See Hull's Historical and, Comparative Cenms, pp. 196-200; also Census of 
 Iowa, 1888, pp. 1-81. 
 
 *Iowa State Begister, March 6, March 17, April 10, 1886. 
 
 '^ Seriate Journal, 2l8t, G. A., p. 296; House Journal, p. 324. 
 
21 
 
 mittee on congressional districts;^ but during the discussion 
 a substitute was offered'^ which was promptly accepted by 
 the House' and, on April 10, received the signature of the 
 Governor.* In the words of the State Register^ "The 
 measure had the support of a strong majority, but was op- 
 posed by some of the strongest and best Republicans in the 
 House." ^ 
 
 This act apportioned the counties as follows: the f/rst 
 district, Washington, Louisa, Jefferson, Henry, Des Moines, 
 Lee, and Van Buren; the second^ Muscatine, Scott, Clinton, 
 Jackson, Johnson, and Iowa; the thvrd^ Dubuque, Delaware, 
 ' Buchanan, Black Hawk, Bremer, Butler, Franklin, Hardin, 
 and Wright; the fowtTi, Clayton, Allamakee, Fayette, 
 Winneshiek, Howard, Chickasaw, Floyd, Mitchell, Worth, 
 and Cerro Grordo; the fifth, Jones, Linn, Benton, Tama, 
 Marshall, Grundy, and Cedar; the sixth, Davis, Wapello, 
 Keokuk, Mahaska, Poweshiek, Monroe, and Jasper; the 
 seventh, Story, Dallas, Polk, Madison, Warren, and Marion; 
 the eighth, Adams, Union, Clarke, Lucas, Page, Appa- 
 noose, Wayne, Decatur, Ringgold, Taylor, and Fremont; 
 the ninth, Harrison, Shelby, Audubon, Guthrie, Pottawat- 
 tamie, Cass, Adair, Mills, and Montgomery; the tenth, 
 Crawford, Carroll, Greene, Boone, Calhoun, Webster, 
 Hamilton, Pocahontas, Humboldt, Palo Alto, Kossuth, 
 IJancock, Emmet, and Winnebago; and the eleventh, Lyon, 
 Osceola, Dickinson, Sioux, O'Brien, Clay, Plymouth, Cher- 
 okee, Buena Vista, Woodbury, Ida, Sac, and Monona.® 
 
 ' Senate Journal, p. 404. \nid, pp. 688, 707, 736. 
 
 "Home Journal, pp. 721, 744. * Senate Journal, pp. 766, 773. 
 
 "April 10, 1886. "Laws of Iowa, 21st G. A., Reg. Sess., p. 180. 
 
22 
 
 The first district remained unchanged. Slightly Demo- 
 cratic in 1885 and surrounded by Democratic counties, it 
 could not well be transformed into a sure Republican dis- 
 trict. The odd new second district was formed by taking 
 the Republican counties of Cedar and Jones away from the 
 old second and replacing them by the strongly Democratic 
 counties of Johnson and Iowa, thus adding nearly 1600 
 votes to the already heavy Democratic majority of the dis- 
 trict, whUe a 500 Republican majority was released for use 
 where it could be used to advantage. The elongated third 
 and fourth were stretched still farther westward so as to in- 
 clude enough Republican counties to counteract the Demo- 
 cratic influence of Dubuque, Clayton, Allamakee and Fay- 
 ette. Both were now unmistakably Republican. From the 
 remnants of the old second, third, and fifth was pieced to- 
 gether a long new fifth, solidly Republican. The doubtful 
 sixth remained unchanged, although various suggestions had 
 been made with a view to assuring it to the dominant party.-' 
 The seventh lost Guthrie and Adair, gained Story and re- 
 mained decidedly Republican. The eighth gained the Dem- 
 ocratic county of Fremont, which its vigorous Republicanism 
 readily assimilated. The ninth lost Democratic Fremont 
 and Crawford and gained Republican Adair and Guthrie, 
 and so became Republican by a small majority. The tenth 
 exchanged Republican Worth, Cerro Gordo, Franklin, 
 Wright, Hardin and Story for Democratic Crawford and 
 Carroll and Republican Greene, Palo Alto, Pocahontas, 
 Calhoun and Emmet, thus retaining its position beside the 
 
 ' Ottumwa Democrat, April 11, March 5, 1886; Iowa State Register, 
 March 6, 1886. 
 
23 
 
 depleted eleventh as an overwhelmingly Republican dis- 
 trict. According, then, to the vote of 1885, eight of the 
 new districts were Republican and three Democratic. Since 
 that time, various changes have taken place in the political 
 sentiments of the voters in these several groups of counties.^ 
 In 1888 the Democrats lost two of their districts; in 1890 
 they succeeded in electing five congressmen; in 1892 they 
 returned but one representative to Congress; while from 
 1894 to 1902 they failed to carry a single district. In the 
 campaign of 1902, Judge M. J. Wade (Democrat of the 
 second district) succeeded in breaking into the Iowa delega- 
 tion. From time to time, bills have been introduced into 
 the General Assembly for the reorganization of these con- 
 gressional districts; but all have come to nought. It is the 
 arrangement of 1886 which obtains to-day and which gives 
 to the State of Iowa one Democratic and ten Republican 
 representatives in the American Congress. 
 
 Paul S. Peiece 
 
 The State University of Iowa 
 Iowa Citt 
 
 ' This table gives the pluralities in each congressional district since 
 the last districting. Democratic pluralities are marked D; Repuh- 
 lican, R. 
 
 No. OP DisT. 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 
 
 1898 1900 1902 
 
 1st District 
 2nd District 
 3rd District 
 District 
 District 
 District 
 District 
 District 
 District 
 lOth District 
 11th District 
 
 4th 
 5th 
 6th 
 7th 
 8th 
 9th 
 
 R1037E 874 
 D 7300 D 5032 
 E 2929 E 4585 
 E 1930iE 2222 
 R 733IE2516 
 D 618iE 828 
 E 926 R 5397 
 
 D22a5 
 R2206 
 E3899 
 E4437 
 
 E 995 
 R3694 
 R5368 
 R6259 
 
 D1071 
 D9010 
 E 198 
 D1949 
 E 293 
 D1520 
 E2545 
 R 116 
 D1343 
 R1311 
 R 907 
 
 R 629 
 D7772 
 R1459 
 R1590 
 R1098 
 R1175 
 R6080 
 R4331 
 E2478 
 R4944 
 R1277 
 
 3836 
 
 436 
 
 1459 
 
 1590 
 
 5774 
 
 R 
 
 R 
 
 R 
 
 R 
 
 R 
 
 R 
 
 R 7225 
 
 R 4134 
 
 R 3057 
 
 E 14357 
 
 E 9981 
 
 E 3295 
 R 3320 
 R 10423 
 R 8868 
 7368 
 1201 
 6226 
 827 
 2382 
 R 10968 
 R 6828 
 
 R3249 
 E1282 
 E7019 
 E7619 
 E5365 
 E1471 
 E7652 
 E3824 
 E4492 
 R7403 
 R6283 
 
 R 3368 
 E 1465 
 E 11325 
 E 10863 
 E 8858 
 E 3144 
 E 12143 
 E 5451 
 E 6948 
 E 15936 
 E 12152 
 
 1923 
 1158 
 5539 
 5023 
 6783 
 1813 
 9123 
 6861 
 7358 
 I E 12774 
 IR 9133 
 
 -From Iowa Official Registers. 
 
00 
 
 00 
 
 U 
 
 a 
 i-s 
 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 C3 
 
 C3 
 
 a 
 
 Q.. 
 
 o 
 O 
 
 • l-f 
 
 o 
 
 CD 
 
 PL,