    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 119th Congress]
    [119th Congress]
    [House Document 118-187]
    [The United States Constitution]
    [Pages 104-109]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                          AMENDMENT XIV.\5\

    [[Page 105]]

    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 106]]

    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 107]]

    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 108]]

    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 109]]

      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)).