[Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 115th Congress]
[115th Congress]
[House Document 114-192]
[The United States Constitution]
[Pages 99-104]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      AMENDMENT XIV.\5\


[[Page 100]]

State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which 
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United 
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or 
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its 
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sec. 225. Citizenship security and 
equal protection of citizens.

  Section 1. All  persons born or naturalized in the 
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of 
the United States and of the


  \5\The 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the 
39th Congress, on June 15, 1866. On July 20, 1868, the Secretary of 
State issued a proclamation that the 14th amendment was a part of the 
Constitution if withdrawals of ratification were ineffective. On July 
21, 1868, Congress adopted and transmitted to the Department of State a 
concurrent resolution declaring that ``the legislatures of the States of 
Connecticut, Tennessee, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, New York, Ohio, 
Illinois, West Virginia, Kansas, Maine, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, 
Minnesota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Iowa, Arkansas, 
Florida, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, and Louisiana, being 
three-fourths and more of the several States of the Union, have ratified 
the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States, duly proposed by two-thirds of each House of the Thirty-ninth 
Congress: Therefore Resolved, That said fourteenth article is hereby 
declared to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and it 
shall be duly promulgated as such by the Secretary of State.'' The 
Secretary of State accordingly issued a proclamation, dated July 28, 
1868, declaring that the proposed 14th amendment had been ratified, in 
the manner hereafter mentioned, by the legislatures of 28 States. The 
dates of ratification were: Connecticut, June 30, 1866; New Hampshire, 
July 6, 1866; Tennessee, July 18, 1866; New Jersey, September 11, 1866 
(subsequently, on February 20, 1868, the legislature rescinded its 
ratification, and on March 24, 1868, readopted its resolution of 
rescission over the Governor's veto, and on April 23, 2003, revoked the 
resolution of rescission); Oregon, September 19, 1866 (subsequently 
rescinded its ratification on October 16, 1868, and ratified on April 
25, 1973); New York, January 10, 1867; Ohio, January 11, 1867 
(subsequently rescinded its ratification on January 13, 1868, and 
ratified on March 12, 2003); Illinois, January 15, 1867; West Virginia, 
January 16, 1867; Michigan, January 16, 1867; Minnesota, January 16, 
1867; Kansas, January 17, 1867; Maine, January 19, 1867; Nevada, January 
22, 1867; Indiana, January 23, 1867; Missouri, January 25, 1867; 
Pennsylvania, February 6, 1867; Rhode Island, February 7, 1867; 
Wisconsin, February 13, 1867; Massachusetts, March 20, 1867; Nebraska, 
June 15, 1867; Iowa, March 16, 1868; Arkansas, April 6, 1868; Florida, 
June 9, 1868; North Carolina, July 4, 1868 (after having rejected the 
amendment December 14, 1866); Louisiana, July 9, 1868 (after having 
rejected the amendment February 6, 1867); South Carolina, July 9, 1868 
(after having rejected the amendment December 20, 1866). Ratification 
was completed on July 9, 1868. The amendment was subsequently ratified 
by Alabama, July 13, 1868; Georgia, July 21, 1868 (after having rejected 
it on November 9, 1866); Virginia, October 8, 1869 (after having 
rejected it on January 9, 1867); Mississippi, January 17, 1870; Texas, 
February 18, 1870 (after having rejected it on October 27, 1866); 
Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected it on February 8, 
1867); Maryland, April 4, 1959 (after having rejected it on March 23, 
1867); California, May 6, 1959; Kentucky, March 30, 1976 (after having 
rejected it on January 10, 1867).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 101]]

any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of 
age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except 
for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of 
representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the 
number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.



Sec. 226. Apportionment of 
representation.

  Section 2.  Representatives shall be apportioned among the several 
States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number 
of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the 
right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President 
and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, 
the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the 
Legislature thereof, is denied to




Sec. 227. Law governing the establishment of 
districts.

  There  has been a readjustment of House representation each 10 
years except during the period 1911 to 1929 (VI, 41, footnote). From 
March 4, 1913, permanent House membership has remained fixed at 435 (VI, 
40, 41; 37 Stat. 13). Upon admission of Alaska and Hawaii to statehood, 
total membership was temporarily increased to 437 until the next 
reapportionment (72 Stat. 339, 345; 73 Stat. 8). Congress has by law 
provided for automatic apportionment of the 435 Representatives among 
the States according to each census including and after that of 1950 (2 
U.S.C. 2a). The Apportionment Act formerly provided that the districts 
in a State were to be composed of contiguous and compact territory 
containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants (I, 
303; VI, 44); but subsequent apportionment Acts, those of 1929 (46 Stat. 
26) and 1941 (55 Stat. 761), omitted such provisions. See Wood v. Broom, 
287 U.S. 1 (1932).


  Congress has by law provided that for the 91st and subsequent 
Congresses each State entitled to more than one Representative shall 
establish a number of districts equal to the number of such 
Representatives, and that Representatives shall be elected only from the 
single-Member districts so established. (Hawaii and New Mexico were 
excepted from the operation of this statute for the elections to the 
91st Congress by Public Law 90-196; see 2 U.S.C. 2c). After any 
apportionment, until a State is redistricted in a manner provided by its 
own law and in compliance with the congressional mandate, the question 
of whether its Representatives shall be elected by districts, at large, 
or by a combination of both, is determined by the Apportionment Act of 
1941 (2 U.S.C. 2a).


[[Page 102]]

have recently upheld under Federal law and the Constitution a counting 
methodology used by the Census Bureau in a decennial census. This 
method, known as ``imputation,'' was held to be different than 
``sampling,'' a method prohibited under section 195 of title 13, United 
States Code. Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002). The method of 
apportioning the seats in the House is vested exclusively in Congress, 
and neither States nor courts may direct greater or lesser 
representation than that allocated by statute (Deschler, ch 8 Sec. 1). 
See Deschler, ch. 8 for apportionment and districting.
  Under the Apportionment Act, a statistical model known as the ``method 
of equal proportions'' is used to determine the number of 
Representatives to which each State is entitled. Although other methods 
for apportioning House seats may be permitted, the equal proportions 
method chosen by Congress has been upheld under the Constitution and was 
plainly intended to reach as close as practicable the goal of ``one 
person, one vote.'' Massachusetts v. Mosbacher, 785 F. Supp. 230 (D. 
Mass. 1992), rev'd on other grounds Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 
788 (1992). The courts also



Sec. 228. Questions as to elections.

  The  House has always 
seated Members elected at large in the States, although the law required 
election by districts (I, 310, 519). Questions have arisen from time to 
time when a vacancy has occurred soon after a change in districts, with 
the resulting question whether the vacancy should be filled by election 
in the old or new district (I, 311, 312, 327). The House has declined to 
interfere with the act of a State in changing the boundaries of a 
district after the apportionment has been made (I, 313).





Sec. 229. Requirement that districts be equally 
populated.

  The Supreme  Court has ruled that congressional districts must be as 
equally populated as practicable. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 
(1964); Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 385 U.S. 450 (1967). The Court has made 
clear that variances in population among congressional districts within 
a State may be considered de minimis only if they cannot practicably be 
avoided. If such variances, no matter how mathematically miniscule, 
could have been reduced or eliminated by a good faith effort, then they 
may be justified only on the basis of a consistent, rational State 
policy. Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983). The Court also has made 
evident that it will take judicial review of a claim that apportionment 
schemes lack consistent, rational bases. Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 
(1986) (holding political gerrymandering complaint justiciable under 
equal protection clause).



[[Page 103]]

or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-
thirds of each House, remove such disability.

-  Congress <> has by law removed generally the 
disabilities arising from the Civil War (30 Stat. 432). Soon after the 
war various questions arose under this section (I, 386, 393, 455, 456). 
For disloyalty to the United States, for giving aid and comfort to a 
public enemy, for publication of expressions hostile to the Government a 
Member-elect was denied a seat in the House (VI, 56, 58). As to the 
meaning of the words ``aid or comfort'' as used in the 14th amendment 
(VI, 57).



Sec. 230. Loyalty as a qualification of Senators 
and Representatives.

  Section 3.  No person shall be a Senator or Representative in 
Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any 
office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, 
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an 
officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, 
or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the 
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or 
rebellion against the same, or given aid





Sec. 232. Validity of the national debt, etc.

  Section 4.  The 
validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, 
including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for 
services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be 
questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or 
pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion 
against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of 
any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held 
illegal and void.





Sec. 233. Enforcement of the 14th amendment.

    Section 5. The 
Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the 
provisions of this article.



[[Page 104]]



  Congress may legislate under this section to protect voting rights by 
preempting discriminatory State qualifications for electors (Katzenbach 
v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966)), and may lower the voting age in Federal 
(but not State) elections (Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970)).